Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Greenock in the room of Robert Gibson, Esquire, K.C. (Member of the Scottish Land Court and Chairman of the Court).—[Mr. Whiteley.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [by Order].

Second Reading deferred until the third Sitting Day after 6th July, at the hour appointed for the consideration of opposed Private Business.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (REFORMS).

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he consulted the Export Council upon his proposals for reorganising the commercial, diplomatic and consular services; and whether he has taken the advice of the Council as to the type of person who should in future be employed in this service for furthering British export trade?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I am at present engaged in working out details of the proposed reforms in so far as they concern my own Department. I shall naturally wish in due course to consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade in connection with any changes in the Commercial Diplomatic Service which it may be considered desirable to make.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the report upon which these reforms have been based?

Mr. Eden: I am rather reluctant to do that. It was a report on certain specific matters for which I had asked. When the time comes to put the proposals in detail before the House I will give a full description.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously considering the inclusion of commercial attachés within the new organisation, because their exclusion has caused a certain amount of dissatisfaction?

Mr. Eden: I think my answer covers that point.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he would welcome a Debate in the House on the subject of the reforms?

Mr. Eden: I would welcome it when I am in a position to bring the proposals in detail before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAZI-OPPRESSED FREE PEOPLE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it clear that a prerequisite to any official encouragement of groups of free people now under Nazi oppression is that they must be widely representative of various currents of opinion and influentially supported?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mander: I take it that that means that if these people want to be taken seriously, they must get together and sink their differences?

Mr. Eden: That seems to be a pretty good definition.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (JAPANESE TRADE CONTROL).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a report on the Japanese policy of restricting the import of sugar into China to imports from Japan and Formosa to the exclusion of imports by British firms?

Mr. Eden: I am unable to say what the Japanese intentions are in this matter, but I am informed that in March a British firm at Tsingtao received permission to import consignments of sugar from Hongkong on terms which they regarded as sufficiently satisfactory in present conditions.

Mr. Hannah: Cannot we, with America, make representations to Japan to get something done?

Mr. Eden: That point goes wider than the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a report with regard to the declaration made by the chairman of the Peking Peoples' Anti-British Association that no leniency should be shown to anybody openly selling British goods; and what action he has taken in the matter?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The report received indicates that there is no evidence that the sale of British goods in Peking has been affected by the activities of the anti-British association. In the circumstances the latter part of the question does not arise.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that all shipping services, except Japanese, between Shanghai, Ningpo and other ports on the coast of Chekiang Province have been banned by the Japanese authorities on the alleged ground of military necessity; to what extent British shipping companies are affected; and what action he has taken to stop this arbitrary discrimination against British trade?

Mr. Eden: By proclamations of 15th July and 10th August, 1940, the Japanese naval authorities prohibited the entrance of ships of any nationality into certain specified areas along the coast of China, including ports in Chekiang province. Since that date British shipping with Chekiang ports has for the most part been suspended. All British rights have been formally reserved and representations have been made to the Japanese authorities regarding interference with British shipping.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: In view of the fact that any alleged necessity for military reservation at the time the order was made by the Japanese last year has now to a great extent passed away, having regard to the changed conditions in Northern China, will my right hon. Friend now make more energetic representations in this matter?

Mr. Eden: I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend's premises in regard

to the situation. This is all wrapped up with the general position of our relations with Japan. As I have explained, if Japan complains to us about the economic restrictions which they allege that we impose upon them our answer is that until they meet us on matters which concern us we can do nothing to help them.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, under the policy of the Japanese Asia Development Board, all but Japanese yen currencies are to be gradually excluded in private and commercial transactions between North and Central China; whether, in consequence of this policy, both Chinese national currency and sterling will be prohibited; and what steps he is taking to prevent this interference with the freedom of trade?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government are aware of the restrictions placed by the Japanese on the use of the Chinese national currency in the areas occupied by them and frequent protests have been made to the Japanese Government at the injury thereby caused to British interests. I would also remind my hon. Friend of the financial assistance which His Majesty's Government have given to the Chinese Government in support of the Chinese national currency. Sterling is not one of the currencies in use in China and the question of its prohibition does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEDEN (PASSAGE OF GERMAN TROOPS).

Mr. Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the extent to which Sweden is giving support to the German attack on Russia; and whether he has a statement to make?

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the present diplomatic relations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Sweden; whether he has any information as to Sweden allowing German troops to pass through Swedish territory to Finland; and what action His Majesty's Government is taking in the matter?

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Swedish Government's failure


to maintain its neutrality in that it has permitted German armed forces to enter its territory in order to attack Russia, normal diplomatic relations with that Government are to be maintained by Great Britain?

Mr. Eden: The Swedish Government have informed His Majesty's Government that, while reaffirming their intention to remain neutral, they are, at the request of the German and Finnish Governments, permitting one German division to pass from Norway through Sweden to Finland. Representations have been made by myself to the Swedish Minister, and also by His Majesty's Minister at Stockholm, but I have at present no further statement to make on this subject. Diplomatic relations with Sweden remain normal.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the fact that the Swedish Government were told plainly that unless they allowed the troops to go through the Germans would force them through?

Mr. Eden: I cannot answer for what was said to other Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COUNCIL (CHAIRMAN).

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson) is to receive any salary as chairman of the British Council?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has been good enough to undertake this important task without remuneration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Finnish Government's declared intention to fight at the side of Germany against Russia, Finland is still regarded by His Majesty's Government as neutral and at peace with this country?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government are at present maintaining diplomatic relations with Finland.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the present attitude of the Finnish Government in not merely not resisting aggression from Germany but in allowing themselves to be

used by Germany and themselves taking part in aggression upon Russia, contrast very unfavourably with their attitude in resisting aggression from other quarters at other times?

Mr. Eden: I really do not think I should contribute very much by adding anything to my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S JUNIOR AIR CORPS.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the work being done by the Women's Junior Air Corps meets with the approval of the Air Ministry; whether any assistance is being given to this organisation; and will he make a statement on the position?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): This organisation has not received official approval of the Air Ministry, but in order to avoid unintentional breaches of the law, my Department has advised unofficially on certain questions of intended uniform, badges and ranks. No further assistance is contemplated. As I informed the hon. Member on 12th June, in view of the fact that girls can now enter the Women's Auxiliary Air Force at the age of 17½ I do not think it would be justifiable in present circumstances to make official arrangements for the training of girls intending to enter the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AERODROMES (PROTECTION).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement on the results of the recent appeal for recruits for aerodrome defence; on the proposed organisation into units of that body; and whether preparations have been made for its rapid training?

Sir A. Sinclair: It would not be in the public interest to furnish the information asked for in the first and second parts of the Question. As to the third part, the Answer is "Yes."

Mr. Garro Jones: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the officer commanding this organisation has yet been appointed?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is not a separate organisation. It is a means of obtaining


recruits to man the defences of our aerodromes. They are commanded by the station commander of the aerodrome.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman continue to rely upon appeals to the available supply of voluntary recruits?

Sir A. Sinclair: Possibly my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. There is nothing new in this, no new departure in policy. We have for a long time been responsible for certain duties in connection with the defence of aerodromes, and this arrangement merely enables us to discharge our expanding responsibilities.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Is it not the case that when an appeal was made for recruits no details were given as to the kind of duties they would be asked to undertake, nor was it said whether they would be an addition to or in substitution for regulars, and can the right hon. Gentleman expect a good response in those circumstances? On the general question is there really now any adequate pool from which the recruits can be drawn in view of compulsory service?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, we are obtaining these volunteers, and I think we can obtain them from certain categories of men without entrenching upon the man-power which the Army so badly needs.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the Air Force be entirely responsible for the training of these volunteers or will the Army have any say in the matter, seeing that they are primarily responsible for the men?

Sir A. Sinclair: The Army have been most generous in the help they have given.

COOKS (TRAINING AND PAY)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for Air how long it takes to produce qualified cooks in the air branch of His Majesty's services; whether he is aware that some men, after 12 months' service, are still under training and are receiving pay of 3s. 3d. a day instead of the approximate rate of 5s. a day; and why these men have not been allowed to appear before a local trade test board?

Sir A. Sinclair: The period between the entry of an unskilled man into the R.A.F.

and his classification as a cook after training and trade testing should normally not exceed about 4 months and it is usually appreciably less. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, if the hon. Member will let me have details of any cases to which he refers I shall be pleased to look into them.

Sir R Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large number of cases of this kind?

Sir A. Sinclair: Frankly, I was not aware of it. If my hon. Friend will send me the names, I will gladly look into those cases.

AIR TRAINING CORPS

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that in many parts of the country there is a shortage of equipment for sports and welfare work for the boys in the Air Training Corps; and whether he will take steps to remedy this deficiency?

Sir A. Sinclair: Air Training Corps grants payable from Air Votes are intended to cover the cost of Service training and do not provide for the recoupment of expenditure on sport and welfare work. The majority of units are in possession of a reasonable amount of sports equipment purchased out of funds raised locally. Where units are not in a position to raise local funds, application for assistance from a central welfare fund may be made to the Air Training Corps Council of Welfare.

PILOTS (PAY).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air by what amount the pay of a pilot, who flies aircraft on active service, falls short of the pay of the Auxiliary Transport Service ferry pilot who delivers the aircraft from factory to aerodrome?

Sir A. Sinclair: As the answer is long and contains detailed figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not a fact that pilots who fly aircraft from the factories to the stations get almost twice the amount received by pilots who fly the aircraft on operational duties?

Sir A. Sinclair: Rather than ask me to make a calculation by mental arithmetic perhaps my hon. Friend would wait until he sees the statement

—
Married.
Single.


Minimum.
Maximum.
Minimum.
Maximum.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


*Sergeant
…
…
…
…
342
5
0
360
10
0
325
5
0
343
10
0


* Flight Sergeant
…
…
…
393
17
6
403
0
0
370
17
6
380
0
0


* Warrant Officer
…
…
…
432
0
0
—
412
0
0
—


Pilot Officer *
under 30
…
…
465
12
6
—
410
12
6
—


over 30
…
…
519
12
6
—


Flying Officer *
under 30
…
…
532
10
10
—
477
10
10
—


over 30
…
…
586
10
10
—


Flight Lieutenant *
under 30
…
597
18
9
663
6
8
542
18
9
608
6
8


over 30
…
679
18
9
745
6
8


Squadron Leader
…
…
…
886
14
2
947
10
10
749
14
2
810
10
10


Wing Commander
…
…
…
1,051
0
10
1,279
3
4
878
0
10
1,106
3
4


Note:—* Receive additional allowances for children.

(b) As regards members of the Air Transport Auxiliary, I am informed by the Minister of Aircraft Production that pilots are remunerated as follows:

(1) Enlisted in the United Kingdom.

£



Per annum.


Senior Captain 
1,010


Captain
890


Junior Captain 
770


1st Officer (Class B)
710


1st Officer (Class C)
650


2nd Officer
585


Probationary Cadet
375

These rates include a consolidated subsistence allowance.

(2) Recruited in America.

These pilots receive an all-in-rate of $150 a week, equivalent to £1,937 17s. 9,d. a year, free of United Kingdom Income Tax.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

CO-OPERATION WITH UNITED STATES.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is satisfied with the contact between the British and American aircraft industry; is there the maximum co-operation in all aspects of production; what arrangements are in operation to enable American firms to benefit by the experiences of the British Royal Air Force; and are the manufactur-

Following is the answer;

(a) The yearly emoluments, including pay and allowances, of pilots in the Royal Air Force, are as follows:

ing process ideas that produce the maximum productivity in the minimum of time placed freely at the disposal of American and other industries manufacturing for British support?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): Yes, Sir. Except that I would like to see greatly increased facilities for transatlantic air transport, I am fully satisfied that the arrangements which are in operation, or in train, will completely meet the points which my hon. Friend has in mind. As regards the third and fourth parts of the Question in particular, information deriving from the operational experiences of the R.A.F. and from British aircraft manufacturers is freely communicated to the U.S.A. administration and to American firms manufacturing aircraft for this country.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the Minister aware that a real drive in regard to aircraft would be brought about by seeing that the men are properly paid?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That point does not arise out of the Question.

ASSISTANCE TO RUSSIA.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether arrangements have been made, or are to be made, to enable the aircraft industry in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to benefit from the operational activity of the Royal


Air Force and of the production experience of the British aircraft industry; and whether all possible steps will be taken to bring about the best results?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Yes, Sir. Detailed arrangements have not yet been made but every assistance will be rendered to the Soviet Union in accordance with the general policy of the Government, as outlined by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Smith: While that reply may sound very satisfactory, may I ask whether the Minister has considered the possibility of sending out an air mission, composed of competent representatives of people who have had experience in our industry and to benefit by the experiences of the industry in the other country?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: We have not got as far as that yet. Of course, we have to be reciprocal. We should like to know what is going on there just as much as they would like to know what is going on here.

Mr. Granville: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend see that his own great technical knowledge is conveyed through his Department to the Soviet Government?

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Minister do his best to see that if Russia is in need of skilled workers, a certain number of such workers will be released to go to Russia?

FACTORIES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he has any statement to make with reference to fifth column activities in a certain factory in the South of England, particulars of which have been supplied to him; what action has been taken; and whether the persons involved have been appropriately dealt with?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I have made inquiries, and I am satisfied that there is no evidence whatever to support the allegations of fifth column activities in the factory to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Mander: Is not the Minister aware that a person, whose name is probably

well known to him, actually saw the action which resulted from fifth column activity, and is prepared to tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman exactly what took place? In view of that, will the Minister not look into the matter again?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: As my hon. Friend no doubt realises, I was very unhappy at what he told me. The matter was investigated very thoroughly by myself, with the police. The gentleman who complained was somewhat temperamental, and I could not find any substance in his complaint.

Mr. Mander: Has the gentleman who complained been seen about it?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Oh yes, certainly.

Mr. E. Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that the spirit and determination of the men employed in the aircraft industry are such that the men will watch that no fifth column activity takes place in that industry?

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he has considered the report of a visit to an aircraft factory, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for West Willesden; is he prepared to order an investigation into the management of this factory and others doing similar work for his Department; and will he withdraw the present system of payment to manufacturers, namely, that of cost plus percentage, whereby they receive 10 per cent. on top of costs of every job done and institute a bonus on the amount saved on contract price?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The efficiency of factory management is under constant observation and I do not consider that any special investigation is necessary. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that aircraft contracts are normally placed on a cost-plus-percentage basis; on the contrary, every effort is made to secure fixed prices and thus to give an incentive to efficiency.

Mr. Viant: While it may be true that every effort is made to fix the price, is it not a fact that contract work is given out at the present time on the basis of cost plus percentage?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: It all depends upon the work. For odd jobs, the particulars in the Question may be correct, but for contracts for a series of machines there is a fixed price.

Mr. Stokes: Are we to understand that what were known as McClintock agreements have been abolished?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: They are being abolished.

WORKERS (DISCHARGE).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production why hundreds of employés are being discharged from aircraft factories at a time when aircraft are most urgently required?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: While the total number of persons in, and the output of, the aircraft industry continues to increase, it is true that, as a result of developing methods of production and the introduction of women labour, there are, in some aircraft factories, men who are, or who will become, available for alternative employment. Actual discharges are made only with the permission of a national service officer under the Essential Work Order. It will be appreciated that changes in the article under construction in order to meet modern operational requirements are necessary, particularly with aircraft, and that when this occurs a period involving the release of some labour is inevitable.

Mr. Mander: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in aircraft factories at the apparent lack of co-ordination and because the workers object to being paid for doing nothing? Will the Minister alter those conditions or make it clear to the workers why they are being paid for doing nothing?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am making arrangements for explanations to be given to the men, but it is sometimes a little difficult to do so. If we were able to go on with a perfectly plain programme, all would be well, but sometimes machines are stopped because they are not operationally required

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR TRANSPORT AUXILIARY SERVICE.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he con-

templates any changes in the relationship of the Air Ministry to the Air Transport Service?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the Air Transport Auxiliary Service. If this is so. the answer is "No."

Mr. Garro Jones: Why was it necessary for this service to be performed by civilian workers? Is the Air Auxiliary Transport Service really our old friend British Overseas Airways, and would it not be better to say so?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: It is quite a different organisation. It comprises pilots who are operationally unfit. It is a great relief to the Royal Air Force that we can employ pilots on this work who cannot be employed by the R.A.F.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not a fact that the people who employ these pilots in the Air Transport Auxiliary Service do so at a very large profit over what they pay to the Air Ministry?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The service is under me and not under the Air Ministry. I am responsible for delivery of machines to the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Garro Jones: Seeing that T have failed to receive any enlightenment upon this question from the various Ministers concerned, I beg to give notice that I shall take a convenient opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKS AND BUILDINGS (CIVIL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether chartered civil engineers and architects are being used by his Department for the purpose of its works programme; and, if so, how many groups are employed, and how the work is distributed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr.Hicks): In addition to the professional staff of the Ministry, firms in private practice, including civil engineers and architects, are being employed on a fee basis in connection with works programmes. Since the outbreak of war upwards of 250 individual firms have been


employed and they have been selected with due regard to their capacity and to the district in which the works are situated.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of uneasiness in the profession at the way in which this work is being distributed, and that there is a feeling that a disproportionate amount is being given to two firms who have direct representatives in his Ministry?

Mr. Hicks: My Ministry is in constant contact with the Royal Institute of British Architects, and they have approved the arrangements.

Mr. Stokes: If I send my hon. Friend the representations I have received in this matter, will he have them properly examined, because it is anything but satisfactory?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (COMPASS ADJUSTMENTS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether, in view of the increasing possibility of the detention of merchant vessels, owing to insistence upon certain methods of adjustment or type of compasses, he will give instructions that certified compass adjustors may have liberty to use customary approved methods as circumstances may require;
(2) whether he is aware that the trade department of the Admiralty recently circularised shipowners informing them that certain heeling error coils required for the adjustment of compasses would be supplied free provided the compasses were of patterns made by two named firms only; and whether, as these coils can readily and simply be adjusted to fit any of the usual compasses, he will secure the withdrawal of the circular in question?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): As the answers to these Questions are rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the answers:

In reply to Question 27: Although the Admiralty have not insisted upon any particular method of compass adjustment or type of compasses, and the customary

approved methods for compass correction are still followed as far as practicable, these methods are no longer wholly applicable in ships fitted with degaussing coils. Owing to the effects of degaussing, magnetic compasses have to be corrected by the fitting of special electro-magnetic coils which have been designed by the Admiralty and are fitted to all compasses as part of the degaussing equipment. The ritual for adjusting these coils has been laid down in a brochure which has been freely distributed for the guidance of all compass adjusters and others concerned.

In reply to Question 28: Heeling error coils cannot be readily and simply fitted to any compass as my hon. Friend suggests. They have to be designed for each type of binnacle and when a coil has been so designed it can rarely be used in a binnacle of another type. When it was decided to fit these coils in merchant ships the only heeling error coils already designed were for the Admiralty binnacles and for those made by the two firms to which my hon. Friend refers. These types could only, therefore, be mentioned in the circular. Other compass manufacturers have now responded to the Admiralty's offer of assistance in designing coils for their own binnacles, and as soon as this has been done the circular in question will be amended to include their names.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSEMBLY-LINE SHIPYARDS.

Mr. Robert Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why a scheme, known as Assembly-line Shipyards, for the speeding up of shipbuilding, has been rejected by his Department?

Sir V. Warrender: This scheme has been carefully considered, but I am not satisfied that it provides a practicable alternative to existing methods of ship production.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a large volume of expert opinion in favour of this scheme, and in view of that fact will he say what steps have been taken to have such expert opinion consulted?

Sir V. Warrender: I am not aware that there is a very large body of expert opinion in favour of this scheme. The whole idea has been most carefully examined and found to have certain essential drawbacks. In those circumstances


my right hon. Friend is not prepared to go any further with it.

Mr. Shinwell: Although there may be technical difficulties about the application of the scheme, is it not a fact that the head of the United States Maritime Commission has stated that the scheme is a very useful and practical one?

Sir V. Warrender: I am not aware of any statement on the part of the head of the U.S. Maritime Commission. This scheme was prepared some time ago.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my hon. Friend look rather more closely into this scheme and read the documents which have been furnished to his Department, and the statement referred to?

Sir V. Warrender: It is not a question of technical difficulties. The problem goes far deeper than that, and in present circumstances my right hon. Friend is advised that it would not produce ships any more quickly than at present, but rather more slowly.

Mr. Stephen: Has my hon. Friend consulted the representatives of the trade unions?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL OFFICERS NOT ON FULL PAY (UNIFORMS).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Article 165 of King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, which set forth the occasions upon which officers not on full pay may wear the uniform of their rank, is still in operation by the Admiralty?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hall: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the Admiralty is absolutely certain that certain officers are not walking about in uniform who, under this Regulation, are not entitled to do so?

Sir V. Warrender: It is very difficult to give a categorical reply to that, but if my hon. Friend will tell me about any case, I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

UNITED STATES BASES (WAGES).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether instructions have been given to Colonial

Governors to encourage the payment of higher wages than those current in those areas of the American bases in the West Indies where the average wage is below a reasonable living standard?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): No, Sir. The policy of the United States authorities is to base the rates payable for locally engaged labour on those prevailing in the territory or locality for comparable work under similar conditions. This practice is being followed generally in the Colonies concerned, and in accordance with it the rates are being determined by the United States representatives in consultation with the Colonial authorities.

Mr. Adams: Does that answer mean that no encouragement is being given by the Colonial Department to Colonial Governments to encourage the payment of higher wages, where those prevailing are on a subsistence or less than subsistence level?

Mr. Hall: What we were concerned about was that wages lower than the prevailing rates should not be paid. It is a question for the trade unions.

Mr. Adams: There are no trade unions to be concerned in many of the districts.

Mr. Riley: Is my hon. Friend not aware that there are no trade unions in the West Indies for many of these occupations, and is it not the policy of His Majesty's Government to get Colonial Governors to encourage the raising of the standard rates for labour of this kind whenever it is possible to do so?

Mr. Hall: Yes, but where there are no trade unions there are wages ordinances in operation, and it is the duty of Colonial Governors to see that the wage rates are protected.

ST. KITTS-NEVIS

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to complaints of bad and inadequate sanitary provisions in the urban areas of the island of Nevis, St. Kitts, West Indies; and whether he is asking the local authorities as to what is being done by way of remedy?

Mr. George Hall: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The question of urban sanitation


in St. Kitts-Nevis has been examined by the Comptroller for Development and Welfare and his medical adviser, and the Governor of the Leeward Islands has reported by telegram that he has as a result despatched a public health scheme for Nevis and St. Kitts, involving assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.

Mr. Riley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling obtaining in the town of Basse Terre in St. Kitts at the lack of any organised and satisfactory system of sanitation there, and what steps are being taken to deal with this unsatisfactory situation?

Mr. Hall: We are paying attention to it, as the hon. Member will see from my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAGOS (WOMEN'S FRANCHISE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the position of women under the recent Bill concerned with the municipality of Lagos has been worsened by depriving them of their limited voting power?

Mr. George Hall: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the Bill of the Lagos Township Ordinance, 1941, which has now been passed into law. If so, I am advised that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend appears to be without foundation; but if he will furnish me with fuller details, I will have further inquiry made.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I bring to the notice of my hon. Friend several statements in responsible journals to the effect recorded in my Question?

Mr. Hall: I am afraid we are not responsible for those statements, but if the hon. Member will bring any of them before me, I will have them examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLOMON ISLANDS (DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied with the existing administrative arrangements in regard to the Solomon Islands; whether a programme for developing the medical, educational and agricultural services is in hand; and what steps are being taken to secure a

more rapid progressive development of the peoples of these islands?

Mr. George Hall: No, Sir. There is room for much to be done in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, which has not enjoyed the same prosperity as many parts of the Colonial Empire. The High Commissioner for the Western Pacific and the Resident Commissioner are most anxious to improve conditions in the Protectorate, and my Noble Friend is now awaiting proposals for schemes under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940. Despite the exigencies of the war situation, it is hoped that some progress may be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (ACCIDENTS, RAILWAY WORKERS).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of railway employés injured and killed on the railways in Nigeria whilst at duty in the years 1938, 1939 and 1940; in how many instances compensation has been paid for accidents and deaths due to accidents in these years on the same railways; and the individual amount for each case?

Mr. George Hall: The information desired by my hon. Friend is not yet all available at the Colonial Office. The Governor is being asked to supply it, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as a reply has been received.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the difficulty experienced by the trade unions in obtaining information on such matters, will the Minister take the necessary steps to have recognition extended to the union so that they may have information of this character on the spot?

Mr. Hall: That is another question, but I will certainly inquire into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR TRANSPORT.

CANALS AND INLAND WATERWAYS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport when Mr. Frank Pick will report in connection with the investigation into traffic on British canals and inland waterways?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): As I stated on 28th May, in


answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley (Sir G. Gibson), Mr. Frank Pick's report has been received.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, arising out of the experience of the war, he will consult with all the other Ministers concerned and consider making preparations for the enlarging of the Forth and Clyde canal or the construction of a new mid-Scotland canal for ocean-going ships?

Colonel Llewellin: The report of the Mid-Scotland Ship Canal Committee issued in 1930 indicated that the cost of a canal would probably be £50,000,000 or more; that the necessary preliminary preparations would occupy from 3 to 4½ years; and that the construction would take from 10 to 16 years. The project was again examined in 1937, and it was decided that the advantages were insufficient to justify its construction. Nothing has happened since to warrant a reversal of that decision.

Mr. Mathers: I was not asking for ancient history. I am asking a current question: Will the Ministers consulted in connection with this matter include my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio?

Colonel Llewellin: I think I did answer my hon Friend's current question. This project would take so long and would at this time employ so much labour that it is really not a matter that we could undertake in the middle of the war.

Mr. Mathers: Is it being kept in view for after the war?

Colonel Llewellin: That is hardly a current question.

Mr. Stokes: Would it not be well to proceed now so as to be ready in time for the next war?

METAL ROAD STUDS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that the use of metal studs with reflecting lenses is very much approved of by motor drivers; and can he state how many highway authorities are availing themselves of putting them in use?

Colonel Llewellin: I am aware of the advantages of reflecting studs, but without widespread inquiry, which I am afraid would not be justified, I am unable to state the number of highway authorities using such studs.

Mr. Tinker: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman urge local highway authorities which have not done so to put them in?

Colonel Llewellin: I will certainly consider whether we can circulate local authorities.

Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many of these devices are highly dangerous to pedestrians?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, but I do not think this is one of them.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman remember that if these studs were put in the beacons could come down and could be used for the war effort?

ARMED FORCES (RAILWAY REFRESHMENTS).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in order to supply the needs of the thousands of troops travelling; at the present time, there are now provided on all long-distance trains alternative refreshments to the standard 2s. 9d. lunch which is beyond the means of the average member of the Forces?

Colonel Llewellin: Army and Air Force personnel travelling on duty or going on leave carry their own rations for the journey. On certain long-distance trains there are buffet cars in which refreshments are provided by voluntary organisations and N.A.A.F.I. at low prices exclusively for members of the Services. Voluntary organisations also run canteens for the Services at some 130 main line stations. Railway refreshment buffets and platform trolleys are, of course, also available.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that many of these trains are so long that men in the Services who are either at the rear or in the front often do not have sufficient time at stations to get to the canteens, nor is it possible at times


for them to get along the corridors, for these are often congested with soldiers who are unable to obtain seats?

Colonel Llewellin: I think any soldier who really wanted a meal could get from one end of the train to the other.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that civilians travelling on trains envy the soldiers the facilities provided for them?

Colonel Llewellin: I can quite believe that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

ARTICLE (SUNDAY NEWSPAPER).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been called to a recent article in a Sunday newspaper, of which he has been informed, in which information likely to be of use to the enemy was disclosed; and whether this disclosure took place with the approval of his Department?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The article to which the hon. Member refers was not submitted to censorship before publication, nor was it approved in any way by the Ministry of Information.

Mr. Hall: Cannot something be done to stop this sort of thing? Ordinary naval journalists were warned definitely not to use this information, and it has been used, and no action has been taken against the person or paper which used it.

Mr. Cooper: I have. written to the editor of the paper asking for his explanation, and I am waiting his reply before deciding what action to take.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has not the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly assured the House that the system of voluntary censorship is working satisfactorily, and are there not repeated instances in which this system has not worked?

Mr. Cooper: I think the voluntary system is the best, but no system of censorship will work perfectly.

BROADCASTS TO RUSSIA.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Minister of Information whether, in order to improve our relations with the people

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he will arrange to broadcast at frequent intervals the truth about our standard of life, and that it is a rising standard, using as a basis the words, facts and figures given by Mr. W. J. Brown in his recent broadcast entitled "As Well Off Under Hitler"?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir.

Mr. Samuel: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to allow Russia to go on announcing the wonderful conditions in their country, while Mr. Brown has shown that ours are the best in the world?.

Mr. Cooper: I cannot think it would be a good way to improve our relationship with Russia to prove that we are better off than they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS' BROADCASTS (ENEMY AUSPICES).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Attorney-General whether he will give an assurance that British subjects who broadcast under enemy auspices will be prosecuted under the Treachery Act as soon as they can be brought to justice?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's desire that British subjects who assist the enemy should be brought to justice. Whether any particular case or class of case is proper for proceedings under the Treachery Act or for some other form of proceedings must depend on the facts as submitted to me when an application is made. Parliament has provided that my consent must be given under the Act referred to in each case and, I think, clearly intended I should deal with each case as submitted.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether arrangements, are in existence for recording the evidence of such broadcasts?

The Attorney-General: That is entirely outside my Department. I only deal with these cases on evidence submitted to me which is collected by the police or the authorities.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make representations to the Home Office that such a record should be kept?

The Attorney-General: I am certainly willing to do that, or my hon. Friend might get into touch with the Home Office. I wanted to make it clear that it was outside my responsibility.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that if people did the right thing, neither this Act nor many others would be needed?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUDOLF HESS.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent broadcast in Czech by Dr. Benes as to the reasons for Hess's arrival in this country, he will now consider, in the public interest, making some authoritative statement which will finally dispose of the issue?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has nothing at present to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Debate on the Adjournment on 19th June.

Mr. Strauss: While it is, of course, impossible for anyone outside the Government to appreciate the reasons for continued secrecy, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these half revelations by responsible people tend to add to public concern, and that it is desirable to put that concern at rest as soon as possible?

Mr. Granville: Was the Hess story not finally disposed of by the broadcast on Sunday night by Mr. Quentin Reynolds, and will the right hon. Gentleman have it translated into German and rebroadcast to Dr. Goebbels?

Mr. Lawson: Could my right hon. Friend have all these Questions put in the form of a White Paper, and published, as they mutually answer one another, and is he aware that the average citizen in Great Britain does not care a "cuss" about this gentleman?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend is perfectly right.

Mr. Silverman: Could my right hon. Friend say—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION SURVEY.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister without Portfolio, who form the committee appointed by Nuffield College to undertake the social reconstruction survey; what are its terms of reference; what staff it employs; how much of its expenditure will be borne on public funds; and on what Vote?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The Committee of the Social Reconstruction Survey consists of the following members appointed by the Committee of Nuffield College: —
Mr. G. D. H. Cole (Chairman): The Master of Balliol; The Principal of Lady Margaret Hall;
Professor A. G. B. Fisher;
Professor D. H. Macgregor;
Professor A. L. Bowley;
Mr. R. C. K. Ensor;
Miss A. Headlam-Morley; and
Mr. C. H. Wilson.
The Committee of the Survey have co-opted the following members:—
Dr. C. S. Orwin;
Miss Margery Perham;
Mr. G. Montagu Harris; and
Professor Patrick Abercrombie.
The terms of reference of the Survey are, briefly, to inquire into the redistribution of industry and population brought about by the war and the extent to which this redistribution is likely to persist in the post-war period; into the effects of war conditions on the working of public social services (other than the hospital service); into the changes in conditions of living due to evacuation and similar measures taken to meet the war situation, and into the bearing of all these factors on the general problem of national reorganisation after the war.
In addition to the Chairman, the senior staff of the central office of the Survey consists of five full-time research workers and one part-time research worker. There is also a clerical staff consisting of five persons. The Survey employs, in different areas of the country, 21 chief local investigators, two of whom are members of the senior staff of the Survey. To assist them in their inquiries in the areas assigned to them, chief local investigators


have appointed a number of assistant investigators. The work of all local investigators, except; those employed on the central staff of the Survey, is of a part-time character, and most local investigators are giving their services free. The bulk of the expenses of the Survey during the current financial year will be borne by the independent resources of Nuffield College, but the Government have undertaken to meet a grant not exceeding £5,000, to be borne on the Treasury Vote, towards the expenses of the Survey in that year.

Mr. Loftus: Among the names the right hon. Gentleman read out is there any agricultural expert, and if not, in view of the vital importance of the last question, will he include one?

Mr. Greenwood: I should have thought the hon. Member might have known of Dr. Orwin.

Mr. Stephen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think there should have been some leading representative of the industrial movement included on this Committee—some well-known trade unionist?

Mr. Greenwood: I see no reason why. This is an investigation, and investigators are not necessarily experts.

Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there is a necessity for people with practical as well as academic knowledge, in making such researches?

Mr. Greenwood: A number of the investigators are people of practical experience, and, in any case, investigators can always see people of practical experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBED SITES, LONDON (SCRAP METAL).

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, in view of the continued appeal for scrap, why girders and steel frames are allowed still to remain derelict in bombed buildings in London, and especially in the City; and whether he will suggest to those authorities concerned in the collection of such articles the need for greater energy?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer my hon Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on this subject yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MARGARINE (ADVERTISEMENT).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the advertisement that appeared in the Press on 9th June, 1941, advertising Stork margarine, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Stoke; whether this is in keeping with the arrangements made by the Ministry with firms who supply margarine; and is he satisfied that it is good policy to allow private publications of the kind referred to in the advertisement to appear?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The advertisement to which my hon. Friend refers advised readers to obtain a copy of a leaflet containing recipes which had been approved by my Department. This method of advertising, in the view of my Noble Friend, does not conflict with the arrangements made with the margarine manufacturers in connection with the Ministry' control of the margarine industry. In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend' question, I see no sufficient reason for interfering in cases of this kind, but if my hon. Friend has reasons for thinking otherwise, I should be glad if he would communicate them to me.

POTATOES (PAYMENTS TO FARMERS).

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that a large number of farmers who have sold potatoes to the Ministry have not yet been paid, although in some cases delivery was made as early as February; that applications to the headquarters of the Ministry's potato section have been ineffective; and whether, in order to avoid financial hard ship to small growers, he will take steps to see that the terms of the contracts which provide for payment within 10 days of delivery, are in future strictly adhered to?

Major Lloyd George: I have made inquiries into this matter, and regret to say that there have been a number of delays in making payments to farmers in the North Cambridgeshire area for stocks of potatoes purchased by the Ministry. The delays were mainly due to the great in crease in the volume of work thrown upon the area office in the later part of the winter. Special steps have now been taken to bring the work entirely up to date, and I am glad to say that all arrears of payments will be cleared in the course of this week. Instructions have been given that all payments in future must be made in strict accordance with the terms of the contract referred to by my hon. Friend.

FRUIT PRESERVATION.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, what steps it is proposed to take to prevent waste of stone fruit, especially in the case of producers who cannot afford to purchase sugar or bottles for preserving?

Major Lloyd George: The fruit preservation centres which are being set up throughout the country are intended to deal with cases of this kind. Producers who are unable to preserve the fruit in their own homes can dispose of it to the nearest centre for preservation. It should in most cases also be possible to dispose of any privately-grown surplus fruit through the trade. In view of the probable shortness of the stone fruit crop, there is likely to be a good demand.

Mr. Mathers: Is it hoped by these means to prevent the waste which took place last year?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly, the main purpose of the centres is to avoid waste.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Are these centres capable of dealing with the sudden influx of fruit which is likely to occur?

Major Lloyd George: I very much regret to say that, on present indications, I cannot see much likelihood of a rush.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the comparative quantities of tin-plate allocated, respectively, for the preservation of vegetables and jam?

Major Lloyd George: The total quantity of tin-plate allocated for jam preservation ' during the current calendar year is 4,237 tons, of which 1,500 tons will, it is estimated, be required for the making of metal tops for glass jars of jam packed for the home market. It is not yet possible to form an accurate estimate of the allocation of tin-plate which will be necessary for the canning of vegetables of the 1941 crop, but, according to present indications, it will be about 50,000 tons.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that not long ago several hundred tons of marmalade were lost as a result of the refusal of the Ministry of Supply to allocate tin-plate? Does the hon. and gallant Member not think it preferable that vegetables should be bottled, and more jam tinned?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the incident of which my hon. Friend has spoken. I am hoping to inquire further into the position.

Mr. Stokes: But why should such a disproportionate amount of tin be allocated to the preservation of vegetables, and so little to the preservation of jam?

Mr. Leach: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in making arrangements for the sale of soft fruit, he has had in mind the many housewives who bottle fruit and make their own jam; and whether he will ensure supplies for them.

Major Lloyd George: As my noble Friend has recently explained, it is necessary to divert a larger proportion than usual of the soft fruit crops to the jam manufacturers, in order that the preserves ration may be raised to 4 oz. per week as from 28th July. Supplies of soft fruit in the shops this summer are, therefore, bound to be reduced, and it would not be possible to ensure supplies for all housewives who wish to bottle fruit and make their own jam.

Mr. Leach: Would my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that home-made jam is the best?

Major Lloyd George: I have heard that before. But the difficulty is that we cannot possibly, in the present situation of this year's fruit crop, have enough to give to the jam manufacturers and to the general public.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister aware that housewives generally would far rather be assured of a jam supply in the winter than of a meager supply of strawberries and cream for a few weeks in the summer?

SHOPPING QUEUES.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that many landworkers in the Black Country cannot do work on Saturdays as they have to stand in queues to buy food; and will he see that more efficient arrangements are made?

Major Lloyd George: The question of queues in the area to which my hon. Friend refers has already been receiving attention, but I have called for a special report in regard to the circumstances mentioned in the Question.

Mr. Higgs: Does my hon. and gallant Friend not consider that the staggering of pay-days would considerably assist in a solution of this very difficult problem?

Major Lloyd George: I must have notice of that Question.

NATIONAL VEGETABLE MARKETING COMPANY.

Mr. Woods: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the names of the members of the committee appointed to distribute the onion and carrot crops; the names of the regional controllers; and the names of the firms with which they have been associated?

Major Lloyd George: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the directors and area controllers of the National Vegetable Marketing Company. With his permission, I am arranging for the names and other information to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

NATIONAL VEGETABLE MARKETING COMPANY, LIMITED.

Directors

Mr. W. P. Spens, O.B.E., K.C., M.P. (Chairman), Director of Southern Railway, formerly member of Bacon Marketing Board.

Major E. G. Monro, O.B.E. (Managing Director), Director of George Monro, Ltd.; Jarvis, Ltd.; National Coke & Oil Co.

Mr. Richard Burbidge, Managing Director of Harrods.

Mr. J. McFadyen, Director, Co-operative Wholesale Society, Ltd.

Mr. John W. White, O.B.E., Director, White & Son, Ltd.

Mr. L. R. Pym, M.P.: No commercial connections.

Mr. W. T. Jarrett, Finance Director in the Ministry of Food; no commercial connections.

Mr. Rowland R. Robins (farmer, formerly President of National Farmers' Union); no commercial connections.

Mr. Robert L. Scarlett, farmer, with no commercial connections.

Area Controllers

London.—Mr. G. W. Boultwood of G. W. Boultwood, Ltd., Stratford Market, E.1.

Midland.—Mr. F. W. Nicholls of Francis Nicholls, Ltd., Smithfield Market, Birmingham.

South Wales.—Mr. John Earl, Bridgend, Glamorgan.

North-Western  —Mr. C. W. Escott, of S. W. Escott & Son, Ltd., Smithfield Market, Manchester 4.

Scotland.—Mr. W. P. Kent of Russell Turnbull & Co., Ltd., The Bazaar, Glasgow.

UNRATIONED FOODS (ALLOCATION).

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the communication sent from the New Tredegar, Treharris and Troedyrhiw Co-operative Society, complaining about the unfair allocation of unrationed foods and urging an extension of the rationing scheme; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this complaint?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of the reply that has been sent to the communication referred to.

COMMUNITY FEEDING.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how many communal centres for meals, British restaurants, are in operation; and what steps are being taken to get more in use?

Major Lloyd George: According to the latest information available there are in operation 232 British restaurants; 217 centres for meals for evacuees; 54 centres established by local authorities, on their own financial responsibility; 62 centres set up by voluntary organisations; 195 Londoners' Meals Service centres, operated by the London County Council. In addition to these centres already in operation, plans for 257 British restaurants in 148 local authority areas have been approved. These British restaurants are now being prepared for


operation. Approximately 225 further local authorities have plans for British restaurants under active consideration. In reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question, officers have been specially appointed by the Ministry in each Food Division to deal with problems affecting British restaurants, and these officers use every endeavour to persuade local authorities to establish British restaurants where circumstances are suitable.

OATMEAL.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will make a statement on the oatmeal situation, in view of the difficulty some rural villages are experiencing in obtaining oatmeal, and the recent broadcasts to use oatmeal in various ways?

Major Lloyd George: The oatmeal supply position is governed by the capacity of the home mills. Production for some months has been considerably in excess of the normal consumption, but, owing to the great increase in demand, some local shortages have occurred. All cases brought to the notice of the Ministry are being investigated, and in localities in which the shortage is confirmed supplies are being made available.

EGG CONTROL.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that, in the recent broadcasts explaining the egg scheme, the numbers to which the scheme referred were denned as birds; and will he make clear whether hens, cocks, and pullets which have not begun to lay, are meant; and whether ducks are included?

Major Lloyd George: The Eggs (Control and Prices) Order, 1941, defines poultry as "domestic fowls and domestic ducks of not less than two months of age."

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my hon. and gallant Friend see that: that information is broadcast, as some poultry keepers in rural areas get information only when it is broadcast?

Major Lloyd George: I will consider that. But the Order gives the exact description, and that is in the possession of most people.

CANNED FOODS (PRICES).

Mr. Jackson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will arrange for the maximum retail prices to be stamped on all tins of fruits and vegetables which are canned in this country, and are controlled in price, and thus avoid having to prosecute many retailers who are often bewildered by the many prices for the varying sizes and qualities of these commodities?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. My hon. Friend's suggestion would be impracticable.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister give us an assurance that those tins of fruit will not disappear, as the tomatoes and the apples have done?

Major Lloyd George: I have said before that I am not aware that tomatoes have disappeared from the market.

Mr. Stephen: I should like to know where it is possible to obtain tomatoes.

Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Member had been with me earlier this morning, I could have shown him plenty of tomatoes.

RABBITS (PRICES).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the raising of the control price of rabbits?

Major Lloyd George: No alteration in the prescribed maximum prices of rabbits is contemplated at present. The question of the supply and prices of rabbits is under examination.

MILK (PRICES).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Milk Marketing Board have deducted an additional 4d. per gallon from the producers' milk prices in April and May for payment of free milk for mothers and children; and whether retailers are also contributors or whether the producers are bearing the whole cost of the scheme?

Major Lloyd George: Milk prices to producers for the 12 months ending 31st March, 1942, were announced in February last. In accordance with the


pre-war practice, the return to producers during the summer months is always smaller than the return during the winter months. No deduction has been made from producers' returns in respect of the cost of the National Milk Scheme, the whole cost of which is borne by the Government. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Brigadier-General Brown: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that some milk producers-have been asked to contribute towards the cost of the scheme?

Major Lloyd George: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. There is no contribution from the milk trade towards the cost of the National Milk Scheme. If somebody has been charged an additional 4d. a gallon for it, I should like to have particulars.

Brigadier-General Brown: I should like to show my hon. and gallant Friend my milk marketing return for last month.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the position of those who are on National Health disablement benefits who have to apply for relief, and give them the same conditions as the applicants for Supplementary Old Age Pensions as regards the means test?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): My right hon. Friend would not feel justified in proposing legislation to provide that the resources of these persons should be assessed on a different basis from those of other applicants for relief. I may, however, remind my hon. Friend that in granting outdoor relief, Health Insurance benefit is not taken into consideration, except so far as it exceeds 7s. 6d. a week.

Mr. Tinker: When the Bill is introduced, will this matter be considered, and will the House of Commons be allowed to decide whether it is wise or not to do this?

Miss Horsbrugh: I will inform my right hon. Friend of the suggestions which the hon. Gentleman has put forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (MINERS)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the importance set by the Government on increased production of coal in the national interest, he will consider the advisability of releasing miners from the Army for a period, as has been done with soldiers to assist farmers during the harvest time?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the scheme whereby agricultural workers serving in the Army at home can be released for periods up to 28 days in the year to return to their former farms to help at times of seasonal pressure. I am afraid that it would not be possible to make similar arrangements for miners without seriously curtailing the periods of normal leave granted to other members of the units concerned.

Mr. Leslie: We all agree that that is very essential for the production of food, and is this not equally important? If such an arrangement can be made to help the farmer, surely a similar arrangement can be made to release some of the miners for a short period, particularly in the county of Durham, where so many men have joined the Colours and are, at the same time, required at the pits?

Mr. Law: Conditions are entirely different, and, with regard to any injustice, if the same arrangement were made with regard to miners, it might cause serious injustice to the serving soldier, who would be deprived of his leave.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND DRAINAGE (EXCAVATORS)

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make a statement on the subject of the supply of mechanical excavators for drainage purposes to catchment boards, other draining authorities and war agricultural committees, in view of the increasing demands for these appliances?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am purchasing a considerable number of excavators to be operated by county war agricultural executive committees and by drainage authorities who are co-operating with them in the execution of agricultural drainage work, and I


hope to place further orders in accordance with the requirements of the Committees.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of individuals employed in the clothes rationing department set up by his Ministry, both in London and in a town on the South Coast; the previous occupations of those filling the principal posts; and the salaries they are now receiving?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): As the answer contains a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hall: Is there no one at this time on the South Coast with any knowledge of business management? I gather that when letters are written no replies are received, and in one case a letter was written three or four weeks ago and no answer has been received.

Captain Waterhouse: If the hon. Member will bring any such cases to my notice, I will certainly investigate them.

Following is the statement:

About 240 persons are at present wholly engaged on the administration of the clothing rationing scheme, of whom 33 are volunteers assisting the Department during the Initial stage. There are 15 officers occupying senior posts, and the required particulars are as follows: —

Previous Occupation.
Salary.


3 Established Civil Servants
1 Assistant Secretary and 2 Principals on Civil Service Scales


1 Retired Civil Servant
Appropriate salary on re-employment.


5 University Lecturers
}
Salaries within the range -£600-£800 per annum.


1 Schoolmaster


1 Journalist 


2 Publicity Managers


1 Manager to a firm of Stockbrokers.


1 Sales Manager

In addition to the staff wholly engaged on the clothing rationing scheme a number of officers of the Department give part of their time to the work.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the President of the Board of Trade

whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship suffered by those who lost their clothes through enemy action before rationing began, and, through no fault of their own, had no compensation paid to them before this new Order came into force, and so had been unable to replace the lost clothes; and whether he will authorise the immediate issuing of extra coupons to people placed in such a position?

Captain Waterhouse: As stated in reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on 17th June, the arrangements whereby the Board of Customs and Excise and the Assistance Board may issue coupons to persons whose clothing has been destroyed cover these cases.

Mr. Stephen: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether any women were consulted before the clothes rationing scheme was introduced?

Captain Waterhouse: Both before and afterwards we have been in close touch with them on this matter.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Will the Minister be kind enough to say how many coupons are likely to be issued in the average case?

Captain Waterhouse: Every case must be dealt with on its own merits; there is no hard and fast rule laid down.

Mr. George Griffiths: Was the hon. and gallant Member who asked this Question asked to give coupons for the lovely suit he is wearing?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH NORTH AFRICA (UNITED STATES SUPPLIES).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he can make a statement on the release by the British Navy of a French ship carrying valuable supplies, including many thousands of tons of oil, to the Vichy authorities in North Africa?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): My right hon. Friend informed the House on 10th June that a proposal had been under discussion during the past two months between the United States Government and the French authorities whereby limited shipments of


goods would be permitted for consumption in French North Africa, but that for the moment discussions were suspended. Since then, as the result of further consultation with the United States Government, His Majesty's Government have agreed to permit three ships to sail from the United States to French North Africa, one of which is the tanker "Schehere-zade," to which my hon. Friend's Question presumably refers. These supplies are to be consumed solely in French North Africa, and their distribution is subject to the supervision of American consular officers.

Mr. Strauss: Is there not a serious danger that this oil, at any rate, might be used against this country in light aeroplanes or submarines operating off the French coast, and possibly by Vichy or German aeroplanes?

Mr. Foot: I think it was made clear by Mr. Sumner Welles in his statement at Washington yesterday that this oil is to be distributed and administered under the supervision of American Consular officers.

Mr. Strauss: May not that release other oil for military purposes?

Mr. Shinwell: When I put the original Question to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in the answer he has just given some weeks ago to his right hon. Friend, did not his right hon. Friend admit that it would be indefensible to allow the passage of these ships from the United States of America to North Africa, did he not himself agree that it would be wrong to allow the free passage of these ships, and why is it that his Department has now succumbed to the blandishments from the other side?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I think that we must in this important matter be guided to a very large extent by the opinion of the great and friendly country whose assistance is indispensable to our war effort.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir, and although obviously the Government must be guided to some extent by the opinions of countries with whom we are, in friendly relations, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the passage of these ships certainly requires some further explanation, in view of the fact that goods that

we require in this country are being sent to what is, in fact, enemy country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think it would be a difficult question to thrash out in public, from various points of view. I think that there is a good deal to be said on both sides of the argument. On the whole I have become convinced that it is an advantage to the United States to have contacts which in our case no longer exist.

Sir Irving Albery: Would it not have been better if this Question had been answered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is responsible, and not the Minister of Economic Warfare?

The Prime Minister: A question of this kind begins over the matter of shipping or of economic warfare.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this practice to be continued, or is this to be regarded as an isolated case?

The Prime Minister: I cannot possibly answer that question. Is the hon. Member discontented?

Mr. Shinwell: I am discontented.

The Prime Minister: Then, in that case, he should take the opportunity of raising this matter in Debate.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman did not want a Debate.

The Prime Minister: The whole tendency of this Question pays too little attention to the gravity of the situation.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that this matter can be raised in Debate. I understood him to say that it would be wrong to raise it in Debate.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps if the Debate took a certain turn I should have to draw the attention of Mr. Speaker to the fact that there were Strangers present.

Mr. Hammersley: Are the Government quite satisfied that proper safeguards have been taken to see that this oil does not release other oil, which might be sent to enemy countries?

The Prime Minister: The whole matter has been most carefully discussed and is a matter of high policy. I am of the opinion that the views of the United


States should be treated with the greatest respect. I am certain of this, that any action which may at this time be taken by the United States is conceived only with a sincere desire to aid the war effort of this country.

Mr. Gallacher: Did not the Minister of Economic Warfare declare in this House that material that went to North Africa found its way into the hands of Germany; and is it not strange that oil should be released now that could possibly find its way into the hands of Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL CHANGES.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: On Business, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he is going to make a statement in Parliament of the changes which have been announced this morning, and whether now, or at some date which may suit him better?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that I have any statement to make, certainly not at the present time, on the subject.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Would it not be showing a proper regard for Parliament to make a statement about a matter of this kind, which involves great constitutional changes? Does my right hon. Friend say that he declines to make such a statement or that it is inconvenient for him to make one now?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that precedents really would favour the view which the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward that all changes of this kind should be preceded by a statement in Parliament or announced in Parliament. That is certainly not the precedent according to my recollection and experience. I do not see any advantage to adding to the information already given at the present time, and I cannot foresee any time in the immediate future when it would be necessary for me to make a statement to the House on this subject.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My right hon. Friend has referred to precedents. Is there any precedent for appointing a Minister to occupy a station abroad, because it is the constitutional position that all Ministers are accountable directly to Parliament? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Halifax?"] Lord Halifax is an Ambassador, but this is the Minister of State, and all

Ministers are constitutionally responsible to Parliament. As this is a complete innovation, would it not be courteous to Parliament to give some further elucidation?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the House will not accuse me of wanting in respect or deference in every effort to serve them, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make criticism of what is widely accepted as a highly useful and important step in the appointment of a member of the War Cabinet. to be resident at the seat of the Middle Eastern war, I daresay some Parliamentary opportunity will occur. I have no doubt that some answer will be made to him although whether the answer will satisfy his wide-ranging curiosity I cannot tell.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know why my right hon. Friend should suggest that any Question in Parliament is in the nature of criticism. All I desire is elucidation, as is the right of every Member of Parliament, and I beg to give notice that I shall ask some Questions in order to elucidate the meaning of these changes.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to customs in the Isle of Man"; presented by Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill

London County Council (Money) Bill,

without Amendment.

London Midland and Scottish Rail-Railway Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed—

Cardiff Corporation Bill [Lords],

"to confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Cardiff in respect of their electricity undertaking, and for other purposes."

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (WAR DAMAGE) (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1—(Provisions as to weekly tenancies.)

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out Sub-section (1).
The Amendment which I am moving now is preliminary to a series of Amendments to the following Sub-section which are intended to extend the provisions which are contained in this Clause so as to make them apply to tenancies or leases of any length and to ensure that where property suffers war damage, and becomes incapable of use, no rent shall be payable for it either by the immediate occupier or by any intermediate lessee between the occupier and the ground landlord. I move this Amendment in order to cover a gap which is left in the existing legislation dealing with the question of war damage. It is a principle of the scheme which has been adopted and embodied in the War Damage Act that no compensation is payable for any loss of income sustained by reason of war damage. The compensation which is payable is entirely in respect of capital values and not in respect of loss of income. If that principle is to be carried out, and it ought to be, with fairness to everybody, then all incomes which arise out of damaged property should cease automatically at the same time. In the case of an occupier whose income consists of the enjoyment of property, if that property is destroyed, his income is also destroyed, and it is, therefore, unfair that he should be required to pay rent to his superior interest and that that interest should not also suffer a corresponding loss of income.
In addition to that, I want to point out that this Clause as it stands deals with the case which is most easily capable of remedy. The weekly tenant can at any time give a week's notice and put his tenancy at an end. It is true that some do not know whether they have a right to do so, and I do not suggest that it is not proper that this additional safeguard should be given, but it gives a safeguard

to that interest where it is most easy to solve the problem of giving notice to quit, or where the tenant is least unlikely to have a valuable interest in the property. The tenant may lose the whole of his interest and enjoyment and income, yet is expected to go on paying rent to his superior interest. It may be said that there is a remedy under the principal Act whereby a tenant can either disclaim the lease or give notice of retention, but these remedies are not complete. If a tenant gives notice to disclaim the lease, he will lose the whole of the interest which he had in the property, and it falls into the hands of his ground landlord. Not only does he lose the whole of the interest, but he loses his title to compensation except in the case in which compensation takes the form of value payment, in which case compensation is divided between those who are interested in the property at the moment damage takes place. But if the compensation takes the form of a cost of works payment, then the tenant, if he disclaims, has no longer any opportunity to rebuild the property because he has no title to it and, therefore, has no compensation. The whole of the compensation to which he is entitled goes to the ground landlord.
Therefore, notice to disclaim is not a solution of the tenant's difficulties in a very large number of cases. The other alternative is to give notice of retention, but if he does this, he is then, under the principal Act, saddled with the obligation of rebuilding the premises, and it does not follow that he will receive sufficient compensation to enable him to do so. If it is to be a cost of works payment, he may receive sufficient to enable him to do so, but if it is a value payment, it will be divided between him and the other people interested in the property, and although by giving notice of retention he will be saddled with the obligation to rebuild the property, he will not receive the whole of the compensation money which would enable him to do so. In either case the tenant, in many instances, is faced with a dilemma from which there is no satisfactory escape as things stand at present. It would be, at any rate, some easement of the position if he were relieved from the obligation of payment of rent, in the same way as he is deprived of the income out of which that rent would be paid.
This Amendment and the consequential Amendments which it involves on the following Sub-sections are not intended to destroy the operation of the other provisions of the principal Act with regard to notices of retention or notices of disclaimer, where these are appropriate, but it does deal with this grievance, which is very acute and has caused a great many tenants loss and anxiety. In particular, in regard to the question of the dilemma as between the costs of works payment and the value payment, I do not know whether anybody has yet been told with what rapidity these claims can be dealt, but in many cases troublesome problems are involved and, in the meantime, the tenant is left in the position which I have already described.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. The substantial points raised by my hon. Friend may be covered under a subsequent Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes). Would it not be more convenient to discuss the position in regard to ground leases on that Amendment, since Sub-section (1) deals, in the main, with weekly or other short tenancies?

The Deputy-Chairman: To which subsequent Amendment does the hon. Member refer?

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: The Amendment in my name is in page 2, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Where in pursuance of the provisions of this section the rent of any land which is unfit by reason of war damage is reduced the landlord to whom such rent is payable shall as and from the time when the reduction was effected be entitled to reduce pro rata any rent, charge or mortgage interest due from him to any other person in respect of the land and any such other person shall be entitled successively to reduce his like obligation:; in respect of the land.
It deals with the appropriate scaling-down.

Mr. Garro Jones: I think it would be greatly to the convenience of the Committee if the course which has been suggested were adopted. The object of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) is to secure parallel relations in the case of ground rents, and it would be convenient to treat that as a separate subject of discussion.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I was about to suggest that on this Amendment we could discuss all those other Amendments which raise the question of the length of the tenancies to which this Clause should apply, including those Amendments in my own name which provide for extensions. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) seems to raise a rather different point. But if you, Colonel Clifton Brown, were to rule that on this Amendment we could discuss all the Amendments dealing with all lengths of tenancies —weekly, quarterly, half-yearly, and so forth—I think it would be convenient.

The Deputy-Chairman: If that is the general view of the Committee, I concur.

Mr. Bellenger: In that case I wish to deal specifically with the case which has just been put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), namely, the position of tenants holding under a long lease which probably has only a short period to run. There are those, for instance, holding ground leases from ground landlords in cases where the lease has originally been made, perhaps 90 years ago and there are another 20 or 30 years before it expires. On the Second Reading of the Bill I expressed the view of the class of tenants who hold their leases from ground landlords and pay ground rents. What is their position? It is best to give a concrete example, because, when legislation of this nature is being discussed in the courts, learned judges have, on occasion, expressed the view that the intention of Parliament was not made clear in the wording of the Statute.
The ground lessee has three alternatives. He can disclaim his lease altogether. He can conditionally disclaim. He can retain it. In all probability, in these cases he would conditionally disclaim, that is to say, if his house was rendered unfit, he would say to his ground landlord "I want to get rid of this lease subject to certain qualifications." Those qualifications would be very substantial and would be related to the sort of compensation he was to get under the War Damage Act. If he gets a cost of works payment, he will probably want to retain his lease. If he gets a cost of works payment which means that he will be reimbursed out of the insurance scheme, for whatever work


is necessary to make his house fit for occupation after the war, that is fair. He stands to lose nothing. He may even gain a little, because his house will probably be put into a better condition than it was in before the war.
What is the position if he gets a value payment? He will soon know whether he is getting a value payment or not, because the Commission have to inform him of the sort of payment they intend to make. On receipt of the information he then has to convert his conditional notice into a complete retainer or a complete disclaimer. If he is informed that he is getting a value payment, he has to make up his mind whether it is worth while retaining his lease. I suggest that in the majority of cases of value payments he will come to the conclusion, especially if his house has been demolished or badly damaged, that it is not worth while undertaking to rebuild or repair the house and returning to the position which he occupied before the original Landlord and Tenant Act was passed, namely, that of full observance of the repairing covenant of the lease. He will say "It is not worth while; I cannot do it" and he will be forced to disclaim. He then surrenders his lease to the ground landlord.
I ought to say in parenthesis that as soon as he gives notice of the conditional disclaimer, all ground rent ceases while the premises are unfit, and that, of course, is satisfactory as far as it goes. I am concerned mainly with the point at which he would have to say "I cannot carry on; the value payment will not be sufficient to enable me to carry out the repairing covenant of the lease, and therefore I hand it back." He hands back in many cases a valuable lease for which he has paid, at some time, a valuable consideration in money. He may have mortgaged that lease. Assume that he has a lease, with about 20 years unexpired and a ground rent of £10 or £12, as in many cases in London, for which he has paid £1,000 and which he has mortgaged for £750. When he is forced to disclaim the lease, that £1,000 is gone subject only to whatever proportion of the value payment he can get out of the War Damage Commission. But this fact remains—that the full mortgage of £750, if he has not reduced it, remains a personal liability chargeable on all his assets.
I submit that is not equality of sacrifice. The ground landlord gets his slice of the compensation. The ground landlord gets the surrender of the lease; in other words, he gets possession of his site, and probably he gets possession of a valuable site earlier than he anticipated. As things are at present, he is then able to re-let the site on a building lease, or sell it at a greatly enhanced value; probably he gets a much greater rent, if it is let on a building lease, and a better and more modern building than he would have been able to get if the lease had run its normal life. I am concerned to get some different treatment for the holders of those leases. Like my hon. Friend, I think that the first consideration should be the ground rent. Should the leaseholder pay ground rent for something of which he does not enjoy beneficial occupation? That was really the consideration on which the lease was granted originally. It is true that when the original building lease was granted, he was given beneficial occupation of a piece of land, but in the lease he was also under covenant to build some hereditament on the land. The whole assumption was that when the original lessee took the lease, he was taking a site at, in those days, a low rent.

Mr. Pickthorn: Which became lower.

Mr. Bellenger: I cannot follow the hon. Member's interruption. The leaseholder took the site at a rent which was satisfactory to both sides in those days, and proceeded to build his house; and he was assured that he would get quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the premises. Part of that contract has been broken by an act of war. No longer can he get quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the premises; no longer can he get what he estimated he would get when the lease was originally granted, namely, beneficial occupation of the house, or rent, if he decided to let the house. Therefore, I say that the contract has been considerably altered by an act of war which neither side could foresee. What does the ground landlord say? He says, "That may be true, but you must go on paying your ground rent to me as long as the lease lasts." I suggest that is not a very equitable arrangement, and moreover, the Government have, to a certain extent, recognised that, because in the War Damage Act they have under-


taken not to collect the premium due on 1st July, and which will be due for five years under the War Damage Act, whereby compensation will eventually be paid out of the sums collected. The Government have said that where the premises are unfit, they will not collect that premium, at any rate until compensation is payable; they defer the collection of their rent, or tax, or whatever it may be called. To give another example, in the case of Crown properties, the Government or the Crown have agreed to remit, to waive or to extend payment of ground rent due to the Crown in respect of those properties. I submit that the Government might just as well go further and give equitable treatment to those large numbers of ground lessees and concede the point that as soon as the property becomes unfit ground rent, and indeed all rent, should stop.
I am bound to disclose my own personal interest in this matter, for I am in the position of having lost valuable premises by an act of war. Therefore, I have some interest in the matter. Those who have lost their premises have in many cases lost their all. They have neither capital nor income out of which they can pay ground rent to the landlord. Is it fair to say that the ground landlord should go on drawing something from his site while the war lasts—it may be a long time or a short time—when the lessee, or his tenant, has no means to pay the landlord, and when, in addition he has probably to find considerable sums by way of mortgage interest and at some time or other has to pay the mortgagee? I hope I have not exaggerated the case. There have been some letters in the "Times," one from a very large ground landlord who, I submit, does not quite see this case from the point of view of the most hardly-hit person, the person who has lost his house and everything. I know that some hardship would be caused to ground landlords if my suggestion were accepted, but we all accept the principle of equality of sacrifice, and therefore we ought to accept this suggestion. I know that in this matter the Attorney-General's views are governed by the principle which he learned when he was a student of law, the sanctity of contracts. I agree with that principle as long as it can be enforced, but war cuts across many of the established principles which lawyers have taken in almost with their mother's milk. The principle can-

not be carried out in war-time. I suggest to the Attorney-General that he might at any rate look a little more favourably upon this suggestion than he has done hitherto.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not wish to speak at length on this Amendment, because with your permission, Colonel Clifton Brown, and that of the Committee, I would rather speak longer on Clause 9, but since there has been raised the general principle of the distribution of loss between the ground landlord and the ground tenant, I think there are one or two things that ought to be said early in the Debate. The most obvious perhaps, and the least controversial, is that this Bill, and still more the line taken by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), is completely contrary to the recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee. I do not for a moment think that the Uthwatt Committee was infallible, or that we are absolutely bound by its recommendations, but I think it would be both unwise and improper for us to reverse those recommendations on this point, and on this point only, I think, without very much fuller explanation from the Treasury Bench than we have had before.
There is only one other point I wish to make at this stage. I do not understand the argument used by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—and used by him also in the Second Reading Debate, I believe—that the more buildings were knocked down, the more was the value of the others. It seems to me to be a very odd argument and precisely opposite to the argument usually used by persons of the hon. Member's political affiliations. The argument they use as a rule is that the whole of the value of the land, or all of it that is worth mentioning, is value put on it by other people all around.

Mr. Bellenger: Although I belong to a party, so does the hon. Member, but in this case I expressed my own point of view, which I hope will be shared by many Members on all sides.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not follow the hon. Member's interruption, so now we are quits on that. I do not follow that argument; nor do I follow the argument, which was partly a corollary of it, about the ground tenant who is not to get a cost-of-works payment but only a value


payment, and who, therefore, is compelled to disclaim. I should have thought that was an argument of an entirely opposite tendency to that suggested. Surely, it must be clear that the tenant has three choices before him. Either he can disclaim the lease, or he can retain the lease, or he can retain the lease upon a condition the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of which will not be known for several, and it may be many, years. He has those three choices, and surely of those three he will not take the first as long as there is any value left in the thing. It is not as if he had even got to find his own money to keep the thing going. As long as the tenant's rights in the site are rights of any value, there is always somebody with whom he can do a deal or somebody from whom he can borrow money. So long as the thing is worth anything, the landlord will get the advantage, if it is an advantage, of the lease being disclaimed, only where, so far as the tenant can find out in the market, the thing has no value. That argument seems to cut the opposite way to that put forward by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
There is only one other matter with which I wish to deal. I did say, on Second Reading, that I had some slight personal interest in the matter. I should like to make it clear again that I have a very slight personal interest in this matter on both sides. It has been suggested also that those whom I represent have a great interest in this matter. So far as I know, that is not true. I consulted the academic financial authorities, and I understand they do not wish to take any line in the matter. Therefore, anything I say on this Bill is entirely personal.

Sir William Davison: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) very ably and sympathetically put the case, which undoubtedly is a very hard case, of the lessee who has lost his house, which he may have mortgaged, as a result of enemy action. I do not think, however, that he made the case of the owner equally clear. He gave an instance of a ground lease at a ground rent of, say, £10 where there were 20 years to run. But the owner only accepted that low rent of £10 a year on condition that the lessee should put up a house, and that at the end, generally of

the 80th year, he should get the land and the house, and so be able to have or to let the land plus the house. In the case which the hon. Member gave, where there were only 20 years to run, the owner lost the 60 years for which this very nominal rent was being paid towards the building of the house. Surely he is entitled to some compensation for the loss he has suffered, because in another 20 years he would have had the land and the house? I want to make it clear that there is a serious loss on both sides, and that it is not only the lessee who suffers, but also the owner of the land.

Mr. Garro Jones: I do not know whether the Committee is fully aware of the fact that, by a tacit agreement reached a few moments ago, we are discussing on this Amendment all questions affecting the length or class of tenancies to be brought under the simpler procedure provided by this Clause. While I do not propose to reiterate at great length the many arguments which have already been used in favour of bringing a wider class of tenancies under that simpler procedure, I think it would be well to recapitulate the attitude which we take up on the matter. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will have something further to say upon the subject. When it was decided that a simpler procedure was necessary, that decision was arrived at either to relieve the pockets of persons who would be unable to afford the more complicated procedure of the principal Act, or to take out some classes of property on a different principle. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General might have said that dwelling houses are in some special category and that we ought to give them the simpler procedure. Again he might have said that premises in actual occupation are entitled to a simpler procedure, or that premises below a certain annual value are entitled to a similar procedure. Instead of that, and I confess I cannot see any logical basis for it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said he will include weekly tenancies of all kinds and bring them within the compass of the simpler procedure.
We have already pointed out that a weekly tenant may pay in a year a considerably higher rent than an annual tenant. We have asked the Attorney-General whether he has been able to produce or find any statistics showing


what percentage of tenancies in this country, particularly of dwelling houses, are let on weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual or longer leases. He has not been able to give us the advantage of any such information. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on the Front Bench, and it may be that she has made some research into the matter; if so, I am sure the Committee would wish to have the information. For my part, I think the concession which the Attorney-General has made to us, and which he will propose in his next and consequential Amendments, that the advantage of this simpler procedure should be extended to quarterly tenancies, is not a concession of very great value. We appreciate, however, that it is a concession, but we on this side of the Committee feel that the period ought to be extended to at least 12 months. We take that view for the reasons mentioned again to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), that the shorter the tenancy, other things being equal, the less is the need for a simpler procedure, because there is another way out, provided under the terms of the contract, by the tenant giving notice to quit. I hope it is not even yet too late for the Attorney-General to tell us he will extend the great benefit of this Clause, which we were very glad to see, to all annual tenants of dwelling houses. I am sure that by so doing he would bring in an enormous number of tenants who are equally entitled to that procedure— particularly those who live in the provinces. I hope that before the Committee leaves this question rather more substantial reasons will be given why that concession cannot be made.

Mr. Silkin: I do not propose to enter into the controversy which has taken place between Members on this side of the House and Members on the other side of the House as to the relative virtues of the ground landlord and the lessee. All I wish to say on that subject is that I hope the Committee will be very sympathetic to the small lessee who at very great sacrifice has bought his own house and has probably lost all he has in the world as a result of enemy action. It is that particular class of person about which I am much concerned. I hope the Attorney-General will give the closest and most sympathetic consideration

to that type of case. This Bill, I believe, goes a long way towards meeting what has been a very burning problem, namely, that of a person having to pay ground rent when his premises are uninhabitable. I hope the Attorney-General will consider very carefully what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) and see whether he cannot go a little further into relieving these persons of all anxiety.
I wish to speak on the Amendment to the Amendment of the Attorney-General, dealing with the definition of short tenancies. During the Second Reading Debate I said something on this matter which I hope has borne some little fruit, because we now see the Amendment on the Order Paper. On that occasion I drew attention to the fact that while the majority of the tenancies where the rent was lower were weekly tenancies, there was a large number of persons holding tenancies of uncertain duration which, in law, I understand, are yearly tenancies. A yearly tenancy is, among other things, a tenancy where no particular term is specified. There are numbers of people who are tenants at small rents whose tenancies really amount to yearly tenancies. There is also the case of the person who took a small house originally for three years and has held over, and he becomes a yearly tenant. There are many cases in London of yearly tenancies with rents of £30, £40 and £50 a year. You may get in the same street, and even under the same landlord, persons living side by side, one being a weekly, another a monthly and the third a yearly tenant, all paying the same rent, and it would be an anomaly that two of these classes of persons should have the benefit of the simplified procedure, and the third, merely because he happens to be a yearly tenant, though he may be paying his rent monthly—if he pays it weekly, he comes under the terms of Clause I—should lose the benefit of the Bill and have to go through the complicated and expensive procedure which applies to other tenants. This is merely a matter of simplification of procedure. A yearly tenant is, on the whole, not worse off under the Bill, if my reading of it is correct, than a weekly tenant. If his premises are rendered unfit, he gets this reduction more or less automatically, rather than having to go through a complicated procedure. There is nothing in it


financially. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give the benefit of the Measure to yearly as well as to quarterly tenants. If he does, I think he will have met all the serious objections to the Clause.

Captain Sir William Brass: I did not have the opportunity of listening to the first part of the Debate, but I should like to explain what the position is as I see it. A landlord has let a piece of land for development purposes, and, as a result of that, he has required of the lessee to erect a certain building at a certain cost. While the building is being erected a peppercorn rent is usually charged, for a period of possibly 18 months. The obvious reason is that the tenant at that time is receiving nothing out of the land at all. It is only when the building is put up that he gets any return. Consequently, the position, as I see it, is that where a building lease is granted a mutual interest in the site has been created.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. and gallant Member was not present when an agreement was come to. His remarks will come in more appropriately on a subsequent Amendment.

Mr. Selley: I am in entire sympathy with my hon. Friends, and I should like to speak of the particular class which they and I have in mind. We have during the last 15 years encouraged people to buy houses through building societies, and those are the people who, we think, will receive the greatest injury. May I give a case which is typical of those that I have in mind? I happen, for my sins, to be one of these wicked ground landlords. I have built thousands of houses, and I am retaining the ground rents. A bomb has fallen, wiped out 15 of these houses and killed quite a number of people. It is true that, as the ground landlord, I am entitled to the ground rent, but these people can, if they like, disclaim the lease. The point we are interested in is that they have no chance of rebuilding the. houses with a cost of works or any other payment that will be forthcoming. We are anxious that the Attorney-General should take a sympathetic view towards this very large class of people, who, I am sure, will be the greatest sufferers under the Bill. I appeal

to the Attorney-General to see whether anything can be done. I suggested earlier that there should be a moratorium, with no payment of ground rent or interest. I am in full sympathy with my hon. Friends in their object that people who are purchasing houses and have sustained damage shall not lose their all.

The Attorney-General: To some extent the general position of ground lessees arises more appropriately under Clauses 2and 9, although, of course, it is relevant to a discussion on this Clause in so far as it is proposed that the Clause should apply to all leases, irrespective of their length of term. If that were accepted this Clause would apply to leases with 20, 30 or 99 years to run. To that extent it arises on this Clause, but I think some of the larger questions which have been raised about ground leases may be rather more appropriate when we consider Clause 2, the main object of which is to provide a procedure which will be helpful to ground lessees and others with longer leases, and Clause 9, which puts ground leases in the same position as other leases for the purposes of the principal Act and this Measure. On the question raised by these Amendments, I do not see eye to eye with some of the things said about Clause 1. I do not agree that it is right to describe it as merely simplified procedure, nor do I agree that there is no money in it, as it were, that it does not affect rights on one side or the other. 
The genesis of the idea which is embodied in Clause 1 is this: Under the principal Act, passed in 1939, the occupier or tenant of bombed property could get out of paying his rent in one way or another, either by issuing a disclaimer or getting relief from rent in between the period when the house was bombed and when it was again repaired. By giving one form of notice or another the loss which occurs between bombing and repair could, in effect, be put upon the landlord. What one found in practice was that a large part of the damage done affected small tenants, weekly tenants, because it is to them that the bulk of the small house property in the country is let. The bulk of the landlords did not seek to exact rent or hold the tenant liable for rent between the time of bombing and repairing when the house was totally destroyed or partially


destroyed. They realised that the tenant could serve a notice of disclaimer under the principal Act or give a week's notice to leave, and the large majority of landlords said, "We shall not seek to exact rent, whatever the legal position."
But there were, unfortunately, a certain number of landlords who did seek to exact rent. Then the question arose whether it was a sufficient answer to the tenant to say, "You could have given a notice to quit or served a notice of disclaimer," particularly having regard to the circumstances in which many of the tenants left. After the bombing they were often taken to a rest centre and then went on into the country. We therefore thought it right to propose to Parliament that in the case of weekly tenants the remission made should be automatic. But we had to distinguish between weekly tenants with short leases and tenants with longer leases. A short term tenant can always throw the house back on the landlord at short notice, and from that point of view there is no particular hardship or unfairness in making it automatic. There is also the fact that under a weekly tenancy, and, indeed, under all short tenancies, certainly up to the period of a quarterly tenancy, there would never be any covenant to repair on the part of the tenant. Nobody will take a short tenancy from which he can be turned out at a quarter's notice if there is any covenant to repair.
When, however, we come to longer leases I think there are very strong grounds for keeping to the procedure of the principal Act, grounds which I think are fair to the landlord and grounds which from a certain point of view are of advantage to the tenant. Take the case of an ordinary seven years' lease or any lease in which there is a year to year period. If the house is bombed and the tenant wants to get out of paying his rent I think it is only right that Parliament should say to him, "You must make up your mind what you want to do, and tell the landlord." After all the tenant will know the extent of the damage which has been suffered by the house. He can be asked, "Do you want to disclaim?" The Act, cutting across the sanctity of contract, of which it has been suggested I am a rigid devotee, says, "You can disclaim." And it may be that will be a very valuable right to the tenant. As one who has himself served a notice of disclaimer, which was

accepted, I feel appreciation of the rights conferred by Parliament under the principal Act, and I would point out that it was a recommendation from the Uthwatt Committee and did not have its genesis in any prophetic foresight on the part of the Attorney-General. I think it was fair that I and others should be in a position to tell our landlords "We want to disclaim."
But the tenant might say, particularly in view of the advantages conferred by Clause 2, "No, I want to retain this lease"—to retain it absolutely or retain in conditionally, that is, provided the War Damage Commission say that it is a costs of work case. But let us go back to the notice of disclaimer. When it is served upon him the landlord can say, "I will make the house fit" and if the repairs needed are small and such as can be carried out at the moment that may be a very satisfactory position for the tenant, who will say, "Either the landlord will have to do these repairs, in which case I will come back and continue living here, or he will accept the notice of disclaimer and I shall be quit of the whole thing." I believe that the machinery under the principal Act was well thought out. It is fair from the landlord's point of view and it left the tenant free to say what he wanted to do, and the only real hardship under that system is now remedied by Clause 2, into which I must not at the moment go in detail.
I have thought over this matter a great deal since the point was raised on Second Reading, and I think there is a real advantage in this automatic remission, and I also think that it would be very difficult to have the two procedures running parallel. Either you must have the principal Act procedure, where the initiative has to be taken by the tenant, or the automatic procedure. The hon. Member said that in his scheme he would leave the two running side by side. But we found it impossible to work that out in practice, because the whole idea of the principal Act is that the tenant goes on paying rent until he serves notice, which relieves him of the obligation by one channel or another.
Reference has been made to the yearly tenancies, but I think we have done right to stop at a quarter. It is difficult to get statistics as to how much of the land is under monthly or quarterly rents. The main conditions are weekly tenancies, and


seven years and possibly three years. Those are the broad conditions, but undoubtedly there are cases in between. The yearly tenancy is much better left with the longer leases, partly for the reason which was given by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), namely, that what in law are yearly leases are very often cases in which some time has been held over. A man has a seven years' lease, but the landlord holds over a period of a year. The landlord has not the slightest intention of clearing the man out, and the latter can get another lease if he asks for it. I do not flatter myself that I have convinced everybody, but I hope that I have shown that there is a real point of substance in restricting the automatic procedure to the short tenancies.
There is a further small point. The longer the period you take, the fairer it becomes that the tenant should have to make some indication to his landlord. In these days, landlords should be looking after their property. It seems reasonable that when a house is damaged the tenant should communicate with his landlord. By giving him the advantage of Clause 2, he can do so without any disadvantage to himself. I hope it will be felt that we have done what we can in this matter.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word "weekly," in line 8, stand part of the Clause, put, and agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "weekly," and to insert "short."

Mr. Silkin: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, one must accept the position. I am not entirely satisfied that the yearly tenant should not be included, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would keep the point in mind so that further representations may be made to him on the Report stage, I should, for the present, be prepared to accept the position.

The Attorney-General: I am always careful not to give the impression that changes may be made in matters when we reach the Report stage in cases where, as a matter of fact, such changes are unlikely, but on a Bill of this character I can say that I will look into the matter again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 1, line 8, after "tenancy," insert "as hereinafter denned."

In line 14, leave out "weekly," and insert "short."

In line 15, leave out "weekly."

In line 15, at the end, insert, "holding under a short tenancy."—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "If and so long as," and to insert, "Where for any period."
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that, where land becomes unfit or becomes fit in the middle of a period, the rent can be apportioned. We have used words in the Amendment which will produce that result.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 1, line 16, leave out "weekly," and insert "short."

In line 19, at the end, insert "in respect of that period."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out Sub-Section (4), and to insert:
"(4) For the purposes of this Section—
(a)a dwelling-house let on a short tenancy which has suffered war damage shall be deemed to be fit until the sanitary inspector of the local authority in whose area the dwelling-house is situated declares it to be unfit; and
(b)the said house shall be deemed to be fit if it has been repaired to such extent as is reasonably practicable at that time, having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality, and sufficient to render the house reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes; and if the sanitary inspector of the local authority aforesaid issues a certificate that the dwelling-house has been repaired to such extent as afore said, the production of the certificate shall be sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein, unless the contrary is proved. Provided that—
(i) a landlord or a tenant who is dissatisfied with the certificate in question may appeal to the county court to determine the question of fitness in the same manner as is prescribed in Section six of the principal Act;
(ii) a tenant shall not be entitled to any of the benefits contained in this Section unless, within fourteen days of the occurrence of the war damage, he, or his representative, registers his permanent address with the landlord or his agent;


(iii)if a dwelling-house is deemed to be fit by virtue of this Sub-section, but the extent of the accommodation therein has been substantially diminished as the result of the damage, the rent payable by the tenant in respect of the period during which the accommodation is so diminished shall be reduced to such an extent as may be agreed between him and the landlord or, in default of agreement, as may be fixed by the court."
The Amendment has much to recommend it. It gives the effect to the law as it is, because it is prescribed that the sanitary inspector must visit damaged property in order to state whether it is fit or not to be a dwelling-place. This is the procedure to-day. If one goes about in a blitzed area, one sees many properties with notices attached to them announcing that the structure is dangerous. In the second place, it is fairly important that some expert opinion should be taken with regard to the condition of these premises. Under the Bill there is no provision for any person, properly authorised to give an expert opinion, to state what is the condition of the damaged house or whether or not it is unfit for habitation. Only the other day the Minister of Health stated that the vast majority of the houses which had been blitzed were repairable, and under the Bill it is left to the tenant to say whether or not it is fit for habitation. It seems that many tenants will be glad to get rid of their obligations and to interpret the state of the house according to their own advantage. There ought to be some independent tribunal, if there is any difference of opinion as to the certification, and this Amendment provides it. The Amendment also follows the Government's proposal regarding reoccupation by the tenant after repair, with, however, a condition. It is unfortunately the case that many tenants anxious to rid themselves of their responsibilities simply disappear without leaving any address. In this Amendment it is proposed that the fairest way would be to stipulate that if they are to receive any benefit at all under the Bill, they should at least give notice of their address to the landlord or his agent.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I wish to support the Amendment and to endorse what the hon. Member has said. I have nothing further to add.

The Attorney-General: This Amendment really raises three points. The first is the one which my hon. Friend stated

first, namely, that damaged houses to which the Clause applies shall be deemed to be fit until the sanitary inspector specifies to the contrary. That would be cutting across the principle of the principal Act, which makes unfitness a matter which, in case of any dispute about it, must go to the court. It would produce an invidious distinction between weekly tenants and others. If you have a long lease and your house is blown up, you can exercise your rights at once under the principal Act on the basis that it is unfit, whereas under this Amendment the remission of rent would not take place until the certificate had been obtained. Various circumstances might arise to make it difficult to obtain that certificate. The local authority's staff themselves might have been bombed out of existence for the time being, or the man might be in hospital, and I do not really think it would be a workable idea. I think the safeguard is quite sufficient. If the tenant seeks to apply the protection of this Clause when the house is not unfit, the landlord has the same remedy—he can sue for rent, and the tenant would be held to have no right to withhold it. I think that making this a condition precedent will put an enormous amount of extra work on sanitary inspectors, and will make it much more complicated. It is much better that unfitness should be a question of fact which, if necessary, must go to the courts.
Then there is the provision about the tenant leaving his address. I have considerable sympathy with creditors, whether landlords or others, who find that those who owe them money, whether lessees or others, disappear into the blue and leave no address behind them. It is particularly hard in the case of lessees, because the normal rule is that you have to find the man, and serve him notice to quit. I think it is unfortunate that this happens in so many cases. No doubt in the majority of cases it does not, and in most of those where it docs the man can be traced.

Mr. Woodburn: If he has been blown up, he cannot be traced.

The Attorney-General: No, bat otherwise if he had somebody with whom he particularly wanted to keep in touch, he would find some means of doing so. How-


ever, it is a problem. I do not think it would be right to make it a condition precedent that there should be a registration of address. We have an Amendment on the Order Paper which I think will go some way to meet my hon. Friend's point, and I fully appreciate the reason which led him to put down this part of the Amendment. It seems right, if the landlord has rendered a house fit and the tenant does not turn up, that having done his best to get in touch with the tenant, the landlord may be able, after a period of, say, three months, to take possession of the house. I think this will go some way to meet the point raised by this Amendment.
The hon. Member's third point was that a landlord or tenant who was dissatisfied with the certificate of the sanitary inspector ought to be able to appeal to the county court on the question of fitness. We have an Amendment on the Paper—to Clause 1, page 2, line 19—the effect of which is to enable the landlord or tenant of any land let on a short tenancy to apply to the court at any time to determine whether the land is unfit at the time, and I think that meets my hon. Friend's point. If he is satisfied that we have gone a good long way to meet him, I hope he will see his way to refrain from pressing his Amendment.

Sir Herbert Williams: I have not heard all that the Attorney-General has said, but I gather that he wishes the Amendment to be withdrawn because he is going to meet it in part. I agree that the Amendment covers a very wide range, and part of that range is to make sure, incidentally, that when premises are damaged they should in fact be promptly inspected. Since I put this Amendment on the Paper I have had an experience of my own, which I will quote, if I may, for the information of the Committee. Thanks to the efforts of Herr Hitler, a fire took place in a flat which is some floors above mine. It was burnt out. The fire brigade, in their efforts to extinguish the fire, pourned in a lot of water, some of which subsequently percolated to the flat in which I live. One must expect that. Later on, nature took a part; hon. Members will remember that it rained very heavily about three weeks ago, and I spent several hours baling out the flat two floors above mine,

into which I had no right of entry. Then I thought I ought to protest to the local authority. This has a bearing on the subject under discussion, as the learned Attorney-General will see in a moment. The local authority said that their duties were only in respect of the working classes and I regret to say they did not include me in that category. So I pointed out to the local authority—which happened to be the Westminster City Council—that they have a duty under the Public Health Act, 1875, Section 91, to inspect the district and abate nuisances.
The local authorities in this country are not carrying out their obligations in this respect. My case is not unique; I have had a number of complaints in my constituency; the authorities seem to think their duties arise only because there is a war and bombs are being dropped. When bombs have dropped a person who lives in a flat is in a terrible situation. The roof is not his, it is over someone else's flat, and is owned by the landlord. I have no right of entry to the other flat, and I can do nothing. I have quoted my own case by way of example. The Westminster Council say they have done all their duties; they have not. This Amendment covers that point. It would force the sanitary inspectors to go and see every building that had been damaged, which they are not doing now. In a great many cases there is substantial neglect on the part of sanitary inspectors in dealing with these cases. I think it will be wise to respond to the appeal of the Attorney-General, having regard to what he has said. Nevertheless, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will take notice as to the extent to which sanitary inspectors, on the instructions of their councils, are failing to ensure that people are protected against nuisance. While thanking my hon. Friend for moving this Amendment, I think he would be wise to respond to the appeal of the Attorney-General, having regard to certain concessions announced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 2, leave out "weekly," and insert "short."— [The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out "a sanitary inspector of".
The Bill in its present form provides for the certificate of fitness being given


by a sanitary inspector of the local authority. It was pointed out to us, or representations were made, that in a badly blitzed area it might be necessary, and desirable, to supplement the services of the sanitary inspector by other suitably qualified persons who could undertake this work. We thought that a good point. Points were also raised on the Second Reading with regard to the great importance of the standard to be followed in these certificates. I am resisting, and did resist then, the suggestion that we should try to set out a schedule of conditions of fitness. In the times in which we live one cannot do that. Conditions may vary from one place to another. Although one wants to have a proper standard, it may vary, and it would be a great mistake to try and define it. That makes it all the more important that if the public in any particular area feel that the standard should be higher, they should be able to make representations. Therefore, in making this point about not defining a standard, we have by this Amendment, and a later one, made the certificate that of the local authority. It is intended that the local authority should, and it obviously will, use sanitary inspectors, when available, for this work. But it seemed there was a certain advantage in making it a certificate of the local authority. If there is complaint in any area that the standard is not as high as it ought to be, the complaint is made, not against an official, but against the local authority. If not satisfied with the result of representations, a person could approach his Member, who could take the matter up with the Ministry of Health.

Major Milner: As the Committee knows from what I said on the Second Reading I have an interest in this matter. The last few words of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend gave away the whole of his case. He inferred that sanitary inspectors were not appointed to do this work and pointed out that it would be perfectly competent for any aggrieved person to complain to the local authority, and if necessary to his Member of Parliament, and the complaint would percolate through the various circumlocutory channels to the Ministry of Health.

The Attorney-General: I certainly did not intend to give the impression that this

work would be done by local authorities and not by sanitary inspectors. It is certainly our intention that sanitary inspectors should do the work but that the certificate should be that of the local authority.

Major Milner: That does not really deal with the point I was making. The main point, as I understand it, is that the standard is being left to the local authority, so that complaints would not be addressed to sanitary inspectors, and that the local authorities would be responsible for the sanitary inspectors' work. That is opening the door to a great deal of circumlocution, which nowadays would not be helpful, and would be a departure altogether from the practice of the last 50 years. Various Acts have laid down sanitary inspectors' duties, and, as far as I am aware, these duties have been quite well performed. This is one of those occasions where if my right hon. and learned Friend will pardon me, second thoughts are not the best thoughts. As far as I understand it, though I have no expert knowledge other than information given to me, sanitary inspectors have a vast number of duties under the various Housing Acts. They have been considered by the Ministry of Health and by various inspectors of the Ministry, local authorities and other organisations as the proper officers to deal with the inspection of the repair of houses, and an inquiry conducted by the Association of Sanitary Inspectors showed that, in the case of 97 per cent. of the various local authorities, the work of housing inspection was done by the sanitary inspector. As we all know it is the recognised procedure, in housing inquiries by the Ministry of Health, for sanitary inspectors to give the evidence in chief as to structure and the sanitary condition of the housing concerned, while the medical officer of health usually gives a general statement of conditions. Not only that, but there are, under present housing regulations, requirements laid down regarding the standards of fitness. My right hon. and learned Friend has laid considerable stress on that matter.
I agree that it is important that there should be uniformity and consistency between authority and authority. I should say, with some emphasis, that it is certainly desirable that standards of fitness


should not be decided by the amount of pressure which can be brought to bear upon particular local authorities. Surely, those who have been entrusted with this work for a great number of years, who already have to decide standards of fitness, are the best persons to give certificates, based, it may be, on a modified standard of fitness, as a result of war conditions. No doubt there will have to be some minimum requirements. Clearly, a house should be wind and weather proof, the roof should be watertight, the water supply in order and adequate, sanitary accommodation and storage should be provided, there should be cooking, heating and washing facilities, and suitable drainage. All those matters are questions of day-to-day practice with sanitary inspectors.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not press his Amendment. I know that he has stressed the point that local authorities should, and, no doubt, will, appoint sanitary inspectors to do the work. But it must be borne in mind that the certificate has to be given, not on the day after a blitz, but after the repairs have been carried out. It will be the duty of the sanitary inspector in any event to inspect the property. I submit that it would be quite uneconomical for local authorities to appoint other people to do duties which already have to be carried out by the sanitary inspectors. It may not be possible in the event of heavy damage for the sanitary inspectors to do the work as expeditiously as one would wish; and, therefore, it might be right to have other people in reserve. To meet that contingency, would my right hon. and learned Friend not accept the alternative which is contained in an Amendment that I have put on the Order Paper, leave in the words which he is proposing to leave out, and add, "or other officials appointed for the purpose by the local authority"? In that way, it seems to me, we should be getting the best of both worlds.

The Attorney-General: I do not believe that in practice this is a very big point. There is no doubt that the work could be done by the sanitary inspector. I ask the Committee, however, to accept our Amendment, and we will look into the matter again if necessary. This is not work to which you can apply peace-time

standards; my hon. and gallant Friend realises that. It is also the case that the standards will depend upon what materials are available, and so on. We feel that, in one sense, it is fairer to the sanitary inspectors that they should not be responsible for the certificates, but that the certificates should be issued by the local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move in page 2, line 12, at the end, to insert:
'' At any time after three months following the date of the issue of a certificate under this subsection the tenant may apply to the local authority for the certificate to be varied or annulled, and if the local authority is satisfied that the house has not been repaired to such extent as is reasonably practicable at the time, the local authority shall withdraw the certificate or vary the certificate according to the circumstances prevailing at the time of such application.
If I may, for a moment, take the Committee along a somewhat broad approach to the Amendment, I would like to say that Clause 1 is not, as has been said, a concession to tenants, except in the legal sense. Unfortunately, the common law has for many centuries made a tenant liable for rent, whatever circumstances might befall his holding. My right hon. and learned Friend has been reminded of one matter of law which he must have learned in his early days of study—the sacredness of contract. I hope that he will forgive me if I remind other Members of the Committee of another ancient proposition, laid down in the days of Charles I, when a tenant was sued for rent by his landlord, and put up the defence that
Prince Rupert, an alien and an enemy of the King, invaded the land with an army, and with diverse armed men did enter upon him and drive away his cattle and expelled him from the lands let to him, and kept him out, that he could not enjoy the lands.
One would nave thought that to be a sensible defence, one which has been developed in many other spheres of our law, that the whole object of the engagement entered into has been frustrated. But the learned Judge, in trying the case in the days of Charles I, laid down that, if the tenant covenanted to pay rent, if the land be surrounded or gained by the sea, he was chargeable with the rent, and much more in this case where the land was occupied by Prince Rupert and his


men. That principle remains the fundamental principle of the obligation of the tenant with regard to his landlord, and it has remained throughout the centuries, except in so far as it has been qualified by certain statutory provisions. It is an unjust principle, and Clause I of this Bill is really not a concession to the tenant but a restoration of a measure of justice. I think that the Committee will agree that that is what it does.
In Sub-section (4) we find what is, in fact, a concession to the landlord. If the landlord repairs a house that has been bombed as far as is reasonably possible in the surrounding circumstances, and if he then gets from the sanitary inspector or other official a certificate that the house is reasonably habitable, the tenant is obliged under the Clause to pay his rent in full. If the house as such remains, he is required, under Sub-section (4), to pay in full for less than he was promised. Therefore the Committee ought to view with favour, as should my right hon. and learned Friend, any provision that would circumscribe this concession. Take the example of a house where the windows have all been blown out, which is quite a common occurrence. The glass has been replaced, as it was in my case, with felt because no glass was available. The landlord could then say "I have done all that was possible in the circumstances, because no glass was available in the locality." He gets his certificate, and as the provision now stands he need do no more. He can go on drawing his full rent without doing another thing, and yet within a few weeks or a month or two glass may become available. Glass may be obtainable, but the landlord does not put it in. Is it not right that the tenant should be allowed to go to the local authority and say, "The circumstances have changed. The certificate is no longer valid. The means are there to put the house into better condition than that in which it was when it was certified"? I ask in this Amendment that the tenant should be given the right to go to the local authority, who should cancel or vary the certificate.
I have used the word "vary" in this Amendment in order to enable the local authority, not to cancel the certificate, but to say, "We give you a fortnight, or a reasonable time, in which to replace the felt with glass, and if you do not

do it, then, at the end of that time, the certificate will be cancelled and you will lose your right to claim full rent." I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to accept the Amendment and so enable the tenant to have the right for which I ask.

Mr. Woodburn: I would like to support the Amendment in regard to Sub-section (4). The Bill on the whole is fairly clear regarding a house which is damaged and uninhabitable, and it is also quite clear if the accommodation is reduced, and, I am sorry to say, if it is damaged and the accommodation is not reduced. The tenant who agrees to pay a rent of £20 or £30 for a house is entitled to proper amenities and accommodation. This Bill gives a variable standard of fitness, and no matter what that standard may be—it may be as low as possible, even consist of a tarpaulin sheet—in certain circumstances, the Clause protects the landlord and gives him the right to full rent. I do not say that a landlord ought to suffer because of the blitz any more than a tenant, but surely it is wrong that, in an Act which is to bring relief to people who suffer from a blitz, the tenant should be asked, as he might be under this Clause, to pay in perpetuity the full rent for the house which has very much deteriorated compared with the condition of the house when he took on the tenancy. If a house is blitzed the tenant pays no rent if he continues to occupy it as long as it is unfit, or he pays less rent as may be arranged, but immediately repairs are done the tenant is liable for the full rent. There is nothing in the Bill that requires the landlord to get another certificate or provides that a new certificate should be granted.
I have in mind the circumstances concerning certain houses in a big town which were damaged some three months ago, where there is not the slightest difficulty in executing the full repairs, but after three months the people are still left with a partially blackened-out window, with white canvas to let in a little light, and with all sorts of disabilities inside the houses. There would be no difficulty in repairing the houses, but the landlord has no inducement to repair them, and there is no one who can require him to repair them. He can sit back and draw the rent and need not move a muscle.
I he purpose of the Amendment is that the tenant at the end of three months shall, in certain circumstances, have the right to apply for the withdrawal or variation of the certificate as a check upon such landlords, in order that they might be induced to put houses back into condition. I do not think that the learned Attorney-General has remedied the point of the varying standards of fitness which will guarantee the landlord the full rent no matter how low that standard may fall. I believe it is technically possible, in the case of, say, a town that has been completely blizted so that the people have to live within four walls without roofs over their heads for landlords to obtain the full rent. I would be glad to know where he can point out that that is not the case. I cannot see any justification for a tenant being required to pay the full rent for his house simply because under the existing circumstances—perhaps for reasons of public safety or because he is a ship worker—he must reside in the area.
We suggest that in these cases there ought to be some tribunal with the power to vary the rent according to the accommodation and especially the quality of the accommodation. It may be wrong to put the burden on the landlord, and I would ask the Attorney-General to take into consideration the fact that the proper body to bear the cost is the War Damage Commission. The Commission should take part of the burden off the tenant and part off the landlord, in order that the whole community may share the misfortune instead of the tenant having to bear all the discomfort. A great deal of irritation and serious trouble will be caused if it is insisted that full rent should be paid for a house which has deteriorated. Some provision should be made whereby there could be a modification of rent if property is left completely to deteriorate.

Mr. George Griffiths: As a member of a housing committee, I am rather perturbed because we cannot get material, and I think a landlord may try to hide behind a local authority because there was not enough material wherewith to repair houses as desired by the Bill. I would like the Attorney-General to assure us that there will be no such excuse by landlords. The devil will

never die of excuses. A landlord may say, "I have not the material; it lies with the local authority to find the material." Then the local authority may say, "We have not the material because the Government will not let us have it." The Minister of Health has told us that there is priority, but everybody has priority to-day, and they generally come last. A tenant may say, "Look at my house; it is nothing in comparison to what it ought to be according to the rent I am paying." I hope the Attorney-General will accept this Amendment, so making it perfectly plain that no matter whose fault it may be because a house is not repaired for proper habitation, the rent should be scaled down or, in fact, no rent should be paid at all.

The Attorney-General: When I heard my hon. Friend start the first part of his speech, I thought he was moving the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 15—to insert, "or the amenities thereof have". They very much overlap, and I do not know whether one can discuss them together.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I endeavoured to keep these Amendments distinct as far as possible in the circumstances.

The Attorney-General: Well, my hon. Friend was not very successful. I think it is an impossible task to try and keep them distinct, because they really do overlap, and I shall say on this Amendment what I certainly would have said on the other. This is a very important part of the Bill, and it is important that we should get the best procedure for seeing that the rent becomes exigeable only when the whole house is reasonably fit, having regard to the present circumstances. It would be utterly wrong and quite impracticable to have some system whereby you cut off a shilling if one window Was boarded up and so on. If a house is substantially fit to live in according to the standard laid down by the certificates, I think it right that the full rent should be exigeable. If there is a shortage of materials, a certificate should not be given throughout the house until the minimum materials requisite to make it habitable are available.
As I understand this Amendment, what my hon. Friend says is that you may get a certificate quite properly given within a week of the damage. I have


worked in a room which was without windows for five days and bad no lighting for about two months. Nobody really complains about that, but there may come a time when one says that things might be a little better and that something ought to be done which has not been done. I think the form of this Amendment is to some extent misconceived. Under the Bill as it stands it is perfectly possible for the tenant to take the point at a later stage that the house is not fit. All that the certificate does is to give prima facie evidence that the house was habitable according to the materials available at the time. Suppose, for instance, there is a row of houses in a street which have received a certificate of fitness within a week after the damage has been done to their windows. Suppose that six weeks later all the houses except one had their glass put in under the Housing (Emergency Powers) Act.
As regards the house which has not had its glass put back, for a reason nobody can quite understand, I cannot see anything in the Bill which prevents the tenant saying, "This house is unfit. The sanitary inspector's certificate was never conclusive evidence." I think that is possible under the Bill, but it maybe said that is not satisfactory. Perhaps hon. Members would be content with an undertaking that I will look into the matter. I do not think it would be altogether easy to have these periodic certificates, but certainly, I see the attractiveness of a scheme by which, if standards went up, a man would be entitled to say that as things had improved a bit, he ought to be entitled to some more amenities, and that the sanitary inspector or the official of the local authority ought to look at the house again. If one could find a practical way of wording it, this might be worth doing. It should be remembered, of course, that in many cases these repairs are done by the local authorities, and that is particularly so in the class of cases about which we are most anxious, where the people have least resources to do the repairs themselves. I will look into the question whether we could have some scheme by which the certificates could be looked at again in the light of other conditions.

Mr. Garro Jones: This is a point which we had intended to press upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and therefore, I am glad that he has undertaken to

look into it. I want only to utter a word of caution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was already possible under the Bill for the tenant, at a date subsequent to the first certificate of fitness, to take up the point that the house was no longer fit in the light of changed circumstances. That is true, but he cannot take up the point with the person who gave the certificate of fitness; he has to take it before a court of law. That is what we wish to avoid. We want to enable him to take the point to the local authority. In view of what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health as to the hasty and cursory nature, which will be inevitable in many cases, of the inspection by the sanitary inspector or the local authority, it is vital that there should be a review of the certificate of fitness, at any rate once in three months' time. I cannot see any objection to giving the tenant a periodical right of review, say, every three or six months. I am sure that the Amendment is a well-thought-out and well-considered one, and although we are not pledged to the actual words, we intend to press respectfully for some concession on those lines.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the position in towns where there has been, perhaps, only one air raid. I have in mind two towns of that sort. In such places the houses damaged are very few relative to the number in the town. It may be that there will never be any more air raids on the town. Therefore, is it justificable that the certificate should be a certificate of fitness in perpetuity if the house has had only first-aid repairs and could, in the course of a month or two, be repaired to a reasonable extent? As the Attorney-General said, what might be reasonable in the first week after a blitz might not be reasonable three months afterwards. Everybody understands that immediately after a blitz, when it is not possible to do many things, people will accept the position, but I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the possibility, in towns where repairs could be accomplished without difficulty, of providing some means of inducing the people concerned to carry out repairs. The standard should be set high in order to guarantee that, in cases where repairs are possible, there will be some


authority, either by way of the tenant appealing to the local authority or the local authority having the power to intervene, to see that the work is done where it is reasonably possible for it to be done.

Mr. Kirkwood: This will affect my constituency very much.

The Attorney-General: The Bill does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood: That may be so at the moment, but if anything goes through here now that affects England, England being the predominant partner, it will affect us later on. In my constituency, there are thousands of houses that will be affected by the provisions now before the Committee. We are very anxious to know whether, in the case of a house that cannot be made 50 per cent. as good as it was, the same rent is to be charged as before the blitz took place. At the present time, in my constituency, they are demanding the same rent for houses that are not 50 per cent. as good as they were before the blitz. It is not simply a case of there being no glass in the windows. In order to get the folk back into the houses—we are anxious to get them in, and I am very pleased to say that my folk are very anxious to come back to Clyde-bank—the houses are being made ready in a makeshift fashion. For instance, all the plaster is down from the ceilings. It is a gigantic task, and we cannot overtake it at the moment. To get over the difficulty of replastering, the tenants have accepted that boarding should be nailed up instead of plastering being done. I will not elaborate the matter further, because I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman follows my point. It is most essential that we should get some understanding on this matter, because my folk —and I will do all I can to support them —do not intend to pay the same rent for a house that is not 50 per cent. as good as it was before. I want To know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to do about this.

The Attorney-General: I think that really arises on the next Amendment.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I represent a London constituency, where out of 19,000 houses, 16,000 have been

damaged—I am referring to Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. It is presumed that 14,000 have "been repaired. Does the Attorney-General think that those 14,000 houses have, in fact, been repaired? I put that to him as a serious proposition. What has happened is that one or two rooms have been made habitable, but no one would dream that Bermondsey Borough Council could by any stretch of the imagination make those 14,000 houses perfect. I ask the Attorney-General what he proposes to do with those houses, because the rents are still the same.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member will see there is provision for what he has described. In many of these cases, if part of a house has been rendered habitable there is provision for a reduction in rent. I gather that that is the case he has put. When he speaks of 14,000 houses which have been repaired, I presume that that is a statement made by somebody.

Mr. Smith: It is a statement by the borough council.

The Attorney-General: There is to be a certificate of fitness, but if only part of the house has been properly repaired, then there is a provision for a reduction in rent.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I am very glad to receive the assurance from the Attorney-General. I accept the position that the onus of proving the change of circumstances will have to lie upon the tenant, but I would stress the point emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), that this matter should be dealt with administratively by the local authorities rather than become the subject of litigation in the courts. I agree that it was possible under the Bill as it stood for the certificate to be queried if the circumstances had altered, but it would not be an easy method. There is no obvious way, except for the tenant to find out from a lawyer at great expense. Therefore, I commend for the consideration of the Attorney-General a system by which the matter can be resolved by the administration of local authorities and their officials. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, after "has," to insert, "or the amenities thereof have."
The purpose of the Amendment is to insert a provision that rent shall be reducible, not only by virtue of reductions in quantity, but reductions in quality as well. This is entirely different from the question of attesting the certificate given by the local authority. It is a matter of principle, quite apart from the question of a certificate. Where reduction by quantity has been conceded, entitling the tenant to a reduction of rent, so also the reduction of quality should be conceded, entitling a tenant to a reduction of rent. All will agree that rent is a payment for something more than cubic capacity. It is a payment for convenience and comfort. Who would demand the same rent for a house with small windows as for a house which was well lit? Who would demand the same rent for a house where the only water supply was a pump at the bottom of the garden? Extensive windows and modern plumbing make a claim of supreme quality in every estate agent's advertisement. They are in fact the very things held out to entice the tenant to pay the rent which is asked.
These amenities and comforts are of actual value to the tenant. Why not recognise the fact that if these values are not there they should not be paid for? Let me give an example. A house may have been bombed and the windows blown out. In the place of glass the windows may have been boarded up. No sanitary inspector or official of a local authority would refuse to give a certificate if that were the only damage. Who could say that a house with boards instead of windows could not reasonably be used for housing purposes? Take the case where the slates have been blown off—there are hundreds of thousands of such cases—and tarpaulin has been put on the roof. That method is quite efficient, and no sanitary inspector would refuse to give a certificate. No sanitary inspector would say a house was not reasonably fit for housing purposes if the water supply was cut off. As a matter of fact, there are hundreds of thousands of houses where water has never been laid on, and I would like to see tenants in the part of the country in which I am living not paying rent until an adequate water supply was provided. In all these cases a sanitary inspector

would give a certificate, because under the Clause the house is capable of being used for housing purposes. The Attorney-General asked whether it was expected that there should be a scaling down of is. per window or something of that kind. That is not so. If there is a substantial deprivation of amenities, then the rent ought to be proportionately reduced. The object of this Amendment is to secure that very just alteration, and I urge the Government to accept it.

Mr. Douglas: I should like to give some other examples of the cases which the Amendment is intended to cover. The Bill, like the principal Act, deals with cases where land, including the buildings on them, has been rendered unfit by reason of war damage. I do not know what interpretation the Attorney-General places upon that, but I have always understood it to mean that the house has been rendered unfit by reason of damage to the building itself. There is quite a number of cases in which it might be rendered unfit not by damage to the building but by damage to something adjoining it which interferes with its amenities. Suppose a bomb drops in the street and destroys the gas, electric and water services to the house. The building itself may be repaired so that all the accommodation and amenities remain as they were before, but unless and until those services are repaired and made available, it is no longer in any sense the same dwelling house as it was before, and it is highly inequitable that the tenant should be treated as if he had all the advantages that he had previously enjoyed and which are part of the thing for which he is paying rent. There is an illustration of a case which it seems to me is not covered by the legislation as it stands.

Mr. Kirk wood: There are thousands of homes in my constituency of the ordinary common people, the people that this country depends on to win the war. I should like to read a letter that has been sent to me:
I was a victim of the recent raid on Clydebank. My house was wrecked by incendiary bombs. It caught fire, and I have been notified by the billeting officer that my house is now habitable. My complaint is that it is not. The kitchen ceiling is all down, in the bedroom there is a hole 5 feet by 3 inches looking up into the rafters, the water is running down the side of the walls when it rains, and the ceiling above the bed is down. It is


a damned disgrace to ask me to go back to it and pay rent for it. I am told by Mr. McLeod, the billeting officer of the parish council, that my billeting money will not be paid after next Wednesday and that I must return to my own home, 108, Dumbarton Road, Clydebank, opposite the public library.
Those are the conditions which they tried to impose on my folk in Clyde-bank until I had to intervene and get the Secretary of State for Scotland to lay down a standard of first-aid repairs. Those first-aid repairs are as follow: Roofs to be wind and water-tight, ceilings to be covered, at least with plaster-boarding, windows boarded and dressed with substitute if glass is not available, fires to be in good working order, flues, grates, chimneyheads to be in order, public services, drains, water, gas, electricity, w.c., sink basins to be in working order, rubbish to be cleaned away, front door, lock and key. Now, after getting first-aid repairs, everything is being rushed. No longer have these houses any semblance to the homes that the people were blitzed out of. Working-class houses in Scotland are not owned by the workers but by others. Are they to be allowed to use the power of the billeting officer to force these folk back?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Gordon Macdonald): I am reluctant to intervene, but the Bill does not apply to Scotland, and the question which the hon. Member is asking could not be answered.

Mr. Kirk wood: If anything goes through here in an English Bill which is detrimental to my constituency, I shall have a job to get it rectified when it comes to Scotland.

The Temporary Chairman: The question being put by the hon. Member is entirely a question regarding houses in Scotland. That cannot be answered on this Amendment.

Mr. Kirkwood: What has happened in Scotland can happen in England. If I get a reply which is applicable to England, surely to goodness it will be applicable to the land of my nativity.

The Temporary Chairman: A question as regards housing in England could be answered.

Mr. Kirkwood: I will put it in regard to Yorkshire, Lancashire, Wales and the adjacent counties, including London. It is all-embracing. This is a very serious matter as far as the Clyde is concerned and as far as discontent is concerned. It is because of that that I am putting the matter before the Committee, so that they shall have some idea that discontent is rampant.

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with the general principle that one does not want houses to be certified as fit and habitable and the full rent to be exigible when, judged by any proper standard, they are not houses in which people should be asked to live. We all agree about that, but I disagree with the view that any reduction in amenities should entitle those who rent houses to a reduction in rent. I think that would be wrong. In war-time we all have to put up with lower standards in all sorts of directions. One has to be fair to everybody, and landlords are entitled to fairness from this House like other people. They are not all rich men. If the house that a man has agreed to rent remains fit to live in, according to the standards which we have to put up with in these days, I think it is right that the rent should be paid.

Mr. Kirkwood: Full rent?

The Attorney-General: Yes, the full rent. If it can be said that the top of the house is not fit to use, that the roof is not wind and water proof, then, I agree that those provisions of this Bill should be applicable which say that if the extent of the accommodation is substantially diminished there should be a reduction of rent. The whole question turns on what the standard is to be. This Amendment suggests a substantial reduction in amenities. I have no real idea what that means, and I think it would be difficult for either a court or a local authority to decide what it means. The word "amenities" is normally used for the more aesthetic side of our lives. A gas-oven may be an "amenity," but it is not the word that would have occurred to me in speaking of it. It would be extremely difficult to put into an Act of Parliament a word which would cover all the things which my hon. Friends have in mind. The test is: Is the house reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes, making allowance for the fact that we cannot have everything we want at the moment?

Mr. Woodburn: I think that everyone must agree that the house should be reasonably fit for habitation, but can the Attorney-General show us anything in this Clause which in certain circumstances would prevent that standard deteriorating until it applied to what was nothing more than a collection of stones? There is absolutely nothing here to prevent a landlord still claiming full rent though the tenant is sitting on stones in the middle of one room—provided all the places in the locality are in the like state.

The Attorney-General: But first of all the local authority, through its sanitary inspector, must certify that the place is fit.

Mr. Woodbum: What the Bill says is fit—
Having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality.

The Attorney-General: Not only that, because it also says:
and …reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes.
That is a substantive addition.

Mr. Woodburn: It is all subject to the words
Having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality.

The Attorney-General: No, the Bill says the house
Shall be deemed at any time to be fit if it has been repaired to such extent as is reasonably practicable at that time having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality and"— 
and
sufficient to render the dwelling house reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes.''
It is clear that we could not lay down in a Schedule what the standard should be, because it would vary from time to time, and very often, after a month, the standard would be higher than it was immediately after the blitz. I think the best thing to do is to leave this matter in the hands of the local authorities who are, after all, democratically elected bodies, to whom representations can be made, and who are under the general supervision of the Ministry of Health, which already deals with this matter to some extent under the Housing (Emergency Powers) Act.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr Hughes) raised a point about large windows as contrasted with small windows in connection with the question of amenities. Sometimes I have been glad in winter that windows were rather small. Big glass windows are not regarded by everybody as an amenity. The practical thing is to see that there is a reasonable amount of light available in all living rooms. I believe that any form of words which would seek to define this test of '' reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes" would be so uncertain and so indefinite as to be unworkable. The Amendment would be an invitation to tenants to seek to get courts to say that there must be some reduction of rent, possibly quite a small reduction, because there had been a reduction of the amenities. I believe the proper way to deal with this thing is the way in which the Bill tries to deal with it, that is to bring in all these questions of ceilings, roofs, windows, services and supplies under the certificate standard, the certificate being given to say whether the house is reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes.
The question of a broken water-main has been raised. A water-main may be broken half a mile from a house, and that might interrupt the supply of water, although the house itself may have been unaffected by the blitz. If a main has been bombed emergency arrangements are made to bring water to the people who have been deprived of it. In most cases the main is mended in five days or a week. In London last September and October there was in some cases a shortage of water or the water was cut off for a period. We do not want to see tenants going to court to claim a reduction of rent because the water supply had been cut off for a few days. The right procedure is to have a reasonable standard of fitness, and to see that local authorities get their standard as high as they can, and improve it as materials become more available. In that way, I believe we can get a scheme which would be less likely than the proposal of this Amendment would be to raise court cases, Providing that things remain as they are, I believe we shall be able to get materials for dealing with these matters and making houses reasonably fit.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to first-aid repairs. Everybody knows that people will put up with them, when it is known that the damage is the result of an act of war. But when a house remains in a state of imperfect repair for six or nine months, what might have been treated at first as a temporary inconvenience becomes a serious matter. I understand from the Attorney-General that if a house is in the same condition from, say, 1st May to 1st December and the landlord has not done all that he should, it will then be possible to have the certificate withdrawn so that the house will revert to the position in which the rent is subject to an adjustment between landlord and tenant.

Sir Robert Tasker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman made reference to local authorities. In the case of London there are not only 28 metropolitan boroughs but the London County Council, which is also a local authority. Will he look into that point between now and the Report stage?

The Attorney-General: In regard to the first point raised I have undertaken to look into it. It is of great importance that the standard should not go down a week or fortnight after a blitz. I have undertaken to see whether re-examination of the certificate would be practicable. I will also look into the definition of "local authority."

Sir R. Tasker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Kirk wood: Next week, 400 people are coming back to houses in my constituency which have been repaired. They have been out of them for four months and they have been asked to pay rent for that period. What is the reply to that?

The Attorney-General: That is a point of Scottish law, and I am not the right person to answer upon it.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Where a local authority deals with cases of persons who have been evacuated, but who are obliged to meet their obligations, would such a local authority be entitled to intervene on behalf of an occupier?

The Attorney-General: That point is very much outside the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Williams: There are many such cases.

The Attorney-General: To what extent local authorities look after the interests of those who are evacuated I do not know, but I will certainly look into the matter, if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me.

Mr. Douglas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed the difficulty of accepting the Amendment with its use of the word "amenities" which he considers as vague or of ill-defined meaning. A phrase which might be used instead of "amenities" is "extent or nature of the accommodation." Those words are frequently used.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I cannot respond to the blandishments of the Attorney-General in this matter and I cannot see why the Committee should be forced to accept the position of "all or nothing." That is the position which the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes up. It is pointed out that the certificate will be carefully given and all matters concerned taken into consideration. The certificate may, subsequently, be altered. I would point out that the Postmaster-General allows a proportion off the telephone bill when the telephone is out of repair.

Sir R. Tasker: Does he? That is news to me.

Mr. Hughes: I may have been more fortunate than other hon. Members, but I certainly got an allowance for the period when my telephones were out of action. I understand that the Metropolitan Water Board has made similar concessions, and I am told that the London County Council —landlords on a very extensive scale— have made concessions to the tenants in the amount of rent they have to pay when their houses have been damaged and have not been restored to their previous condition.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene for a moment, I would like to point out that rent concessions are made only when very scanty first-aid repairs— just sufficient to allow people to go back to the house—have been carried out, and not repairs which would enable the house to be certified as fit. I think we all know cases in which something has been done very quickly but has not reached


the stage of fitness defined in the Bill as necessary for a certificate. In cases such as that which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, people have been allowed to return to houses which were not really fit to be certified and accordingly less has been charged. That would not be a case in which repairs had reached a stage at which the house could be certified as fit.

Mr. Garro Jones: We are not making very good progress with this Bill, and it is certainly not the fault of hon. Members on this side. Will the hon. Lady give an undertaking that what she has just said will be conveyed to the local authorities since she has thought it worth while mentioning it to the Committee?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry if I have not made it clear. I thought the argument was that in cases where the certificate was given the local authorities were giving graduated rents, that is, when repairs had been carried out and that different rents were being charged. What I think we want to get clear is that when the "fit" certificate is given the rent due is the full rent, except, as one hon. Member has pointed out, when certain parts of the house cannot be used. The point put by the hon. Gentleman was that the London County Council were charging graduated rents, but that is not so in the case of fit houses.

Mr. Hughes: I think the hon. Lady does concede my point. I am not concerned for the moment with the exempt standard. The standard laid down in Clause 1(4) is that the house should be reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes. The hon. Lady says there is another standard which has been accepted by the London County Council, that of being just fit enough for the people to return to it. I am not concerned with whether it is the standard laid down in this Clause or the standard under which the London County Council is prepared to allow tenants to go back. What I am concerned with is the principle, which the hon. Lady concedes, that when you find that a dwelling is not up to the standard which the tenant contracted for by way of amenities, then the landlord—in this case the London County Council—should be prepared to concede to the tenant a diminution in rent.

Miss Horsbrugh: No.

Mr. Hughes: But it is so. The hon. Lady has agreed.

Miss Horsbrugh: I did not say that the London County Council was conceding a diminution of rent because the house was not up to the pre-war standard; that is why I intervened. What I did say was that there are cases where people are living in houses that would not qualify for the certificate of fitness and are paying something. The houses have had first-aid repairs, but would not get a certificate of fitness until further repairs are carried out.

Mr. Hughes: Very well; I accept that. Equal to pre-war condition is standard number 1; reasonably fit for habitation under Sub-section(4) is standard number 2, and just fit to go back to after first-aid repairs is standard number 3. The hon. Lady concedes that in the case of standard number 3, a diminution is granted, whereas in the case of the other standards no diminution at all is granted; she accepts what my right hon. and learned Friend calls "all or nothing." It is for that reason that I am unable to accept the suggestion. I am prepared to assist the Committee and my right hon. and learned Friend to this extent. He complains about the term "amenity." It may not be the right term. He says that so far as he is concerned he does not know whether a gas-cooker is an amenity. A gas-cooker has been the last amenity on earth to many people, and I hope, in that sense, that a gas-cooker will never be one of my right hon. and learned Friend's amenities. If he were obliged, however, as some of us have been, to move from a more or less adequately equipped London home to a cottage in the country, he would realise to the depths of his being—or if he did not his good lady would—that a gas-cooker is, indeed, an amenity. But if the term can be improved or better defined—and we all understand what we are seeking to convey—I am prepared to accept any reasonable suggestion as to defining it in some other way. If my right hon. and learned Friend will go so far, I will go with him; but unless he concedes the principle of some diminution between all and nothing, then I am afraid that I shall have to adhere to this Amendment and Divide the Committee upon it.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? What we wish to obtain is some security in a case in which a house has been so damaged as to have no daylight, no sewerage facilities—because it is possible for a certificate to be given when there are no main sewerage facilities, but only the provision of buckets, earth and disinfectant—no water, no artificial light, and no cooking facilities.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General: indicated dissent.

Mr. Garro Jones: Yes, I must adhere to what I say. Everything I have said is correct: it would be possible for all these services to be out of action for six months and yet a certificate of fitness could be granted under Subsection (4), having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality. What we want to be sure about is that where it is possible for some of these public services to be restored, if adequate energy and diligence is displayed, then they will be restored, while if they are not in such circumstances restored, the principle of some proportionate diminution should be considered. Is it possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to assist us to get on with the Bill, because as I have said, we are not getting on very rapidly? Can he assure us that he will accept the principle of prompt restoration of services wherever possible, and that he will endeavour to bring that into the Subsection which we are now discussing?

The Attorney-General: I cannot, of course, speak for the Minister of Health, but as far as first-aid repairs are concerned, it is his policy to secure the highest possible percentage of first-aid repairs which the supply of labour and materials permit. I take the case which the hon. Gentleman has given as a very good example of how much better it is to work the scheme as provided in the Bill, than to try to introduce something which would entitle tenants to some reduction of rent having regard to certain considerations which would be extremely difficult to define even if we found a word other than "amenities." I do not believe for a moment that local authorities would be advised by the Ministry of Health, nor that they would be willing in the absence of any advice, to give a certificate of fit-ness to a house which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, had no light, no drains, no

water and no adequate cooking facilities. But the scheme of the Bill of course depends upon a proper standard being preserved in the giving of these certificates.
As it is agreed that we cannot have a rigid statutory standard laid down in the Bill we must rely on the democratic machinery both in the local government areas and Parliament for seeing that these certificates are issued on proper standards. I agree that there is some difference as to whether within a certain area, there should be full rates for something which is not exactly of pre-war standard. As a matter of fact it would not do any good to people if we tried to introduce some system whereby there could be small reductions for this, that or the other. Property should be reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes. I would point out to my hon. Friend—I made the point esarlier—that there are two conditions attacked to the certificate. It is true we must have regard to what is reasonably practicable but the certificate has to certify that what is practicable is what is sufficient to make the house capable of being used for housing purposes. I should be sorry if we had to divide, but I still believe the right method is not to attempt to define the standard. That would be a wrong principle and impracticable.

Sir R. Tasker: My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) referred to houses having no drains for six months. Such a thing is impossible in large towns. Houses would be disconnected from the mains for not more than a few days. A point was raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) who has been more fortunate than I have been, as I gather he has suffered from enemy action once, while my offices have suffered five times. In each instance the telephone, electric light, gas and water were cut off. I have never heard of any reduction in respect of those services, nor do I know of anyone else in my locality who has been allowed such reduction.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the hon. Member not aware that the Postmaster-General allows a reduction on the telephone rental?

Sir R. Tasker: I am informing the Committee that my offices have been what is called blitzed five times, and I


have been without the telephone. The Postmaster-General has not allowed me a farthing.

Mr. Woodburn: I wish to try to help the Committee to avoid a Division. If I understood the Attorney-General correctly, he made a concession in his last remark to me which, if carried out in the spirit of his remarks, would almost meet the position. The Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong. He said the standard of fitness was to be such as to make the house reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes, and that he was going to consider and, I take it, confer the right, to vary that certificate if all was not being done to bring the house back to pre-war standard, or as near as possible to it in the circumstances. In that case the certificate would be withdrawn. If the certificate was withdrawn the house would require to be dealt with under Sub-section (3), in which case, if the tenant was still occupying the house, it would be a matter for negotiation between the landlord and the tenant how much rent was to be paid. In other words, when that certificate was withdrawn the house would become subject to adjudication with regard to rent by some kind of fair wages tribunal, either of the two people concerned acting in harmony, or, if necessary, by appeal to the court.
If I am right, the whole point is stated in Sub-section (3), and the only real dispute between my right hon. and learned Friend and myself is the question as to when a house is to be subject to Subsection (3). That must, I take it, depend on the circumstances in various localities. The question is whether there will be a minimum of amenity below which a certificate will not be granted. If that minimum is sufficiently high, as anticipated by my right hon. and learned Friend, no difficulty would arise. That is the whole dispute—what the minimum is to be. It seems a small point, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that he will look into it and see that the full rate will not be exacted for something below that minimum standard, that would largely meet the point.

Mr. Hughes: I entirely dissociate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend. He is falling into the trap of confusing this Amendment with the pre-

vious Amendment. I regret I cannot accept the suggestion he has thrown out, much as I respect his opinion. I do not believe that what has been conceded goes any way towards meeting the point.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert:
For the purposes of this Sub-section, an instrument purporting to be such a certificate as aforesaid and to be signed by an officer of a local authority shall, without furl her proof, be deemed to be a certificate issued by the local authority, unless the contrary is proved.
(5) Where the court is satisfied, on the application of the landlord of any land let on a short tenancy which has been rendered unlit by war damage, that—
(a)the land is fit;
(b)a period of not less than three months has elapsed since the land was rendered fit, and during the whole of that period the tenant has not been in occupation of the land either in whole or in part and has not paid any rent in respect of that period or any part thereof; and
(c)the landlord has made all reasonable efforts to communicate with the tenant and has failed to do so;
the court may, if it thinks fit, determine the tenancy and give immediate possession of the tenant's interest in the land and, where the tenant has sublet the whole or any part of the land, the court may give directions preserving the rights of the sub-tenant or determining those rights, either immediately or after the landlord has complied with such requirements as may be specified.
(6) The landlord or tenant of any land let on a short tenancy may at any time apply to the court to determine whether the land is or was at any time unfit by reason of war damage or any other question arising under this Section in relation to the tenancy.
The first part of the Amendment refers to the local authority certificate with which I have already dealt. The second part is a provision under which, if the tenant, as it were, disappears into the blue, and remains there for a period of three months after the house has been rendered fit, and the landlord has made all reasonable efforts to communicate with him and fails to do so, the court, if it thinks fit, may determine the tenancy. I think that is a very fair provision, particularly as we are extending Clause I to rather longer tenancies. I hope it will commend itself to the Committee. The new Sub-section (6) provides that a landlord or tenant may apply to the court—the county court under the principal Act—to determine whether the land is or was at any time unfit. That is the convenient procedure


because the rent in these cases might be above the normal county court jurisdiction.

Mr. Hughes: It was my intention to put upon the Order Paper an Amendment designed to meet the difficulty which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out. I am only too glad to support the Amendment which is now on the Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, at the end, to insert:
(6) Where, under the principal Act, a notice of disclaimer has been served, or a notice of retention has been or is deemed to have been served, before the passing of this Act, in relation to any short tenancy, this Section shall not, unless the notice is of no effect, apply to that tenancy.
This Amendment simply preserves and makes clear the position if, under the principal Act, before this Act becomes law, notice of disclaimer or notice of retention has been served. It is not intended to seek to interfere with what has happened under the law.

Mr. Bellenger: Are we to understand that all notices to disclaim or to retain in respect of any tenancies before the passing of this Act stand, and are not affected by the Act?

The Attorney-General: We had better wait for Clause 2. This Clause deals only with quarterly short tenancies. I think it is rather unlikely, but there might possibly be a disclaimer; and, therefore, this Amendment is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Whereupon, the YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1941.

2. Justices (supplemental List) Act, 1941.
3. Trustee (War Damage Insurance) Act, 1941.
4. Naval Discipline (Amendment) Act, 1941.
5. Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Act, 1941.
6. Land Drainage (Benwick Internal Drainage District) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1941.
7. Cannock Urban District Council Act, 1941.
8. Railway Clearing System Super- annuation Fund Act, 1941.
9. London County Council (Money) Act, 1941.

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (WAR DAMAGE) (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, after the words last inserted, to insert:
(6) Where in pursuance of the provisions of this section the rent of any land which is unfit by reason of war damage is reduced the landlord to whom such rent is payable shall as and from the time when the reduction was effected be entitled to reduce pro rata any rent, charge or mortgage interest due from him to any other person in respect of the land and such other person shall be entitled successively to reduce his like obligations in respect of the land.
This is an Amendment to Clause Ito add a new Sub-section designed to make more suitable and just the adjustment of liabilities between various people interested in the same piece of land or the same building, when the building has suffered war damage. The Amendment deals not only with the ground rents, which come subsequently under Clause 9, but with all forms of intermediate liabilities. As hon. Members of the Committee know, on some pieces of land you may have a ground rent, and improved ground rent, a long lease, a shorter lease and a very short one, which is the immediate title of the tenant in actual occupation. The Amendment is designed to deal with them all upon this simple basis. When the actual building has been damaged, the adjustment between the immediate tenant in occupation, either the person who is living there or


is working and carrying on business in the particular building, and the immediate landlord, is liability adjustment. It is conceded already in the Bill that the liability will have to be adjusted with the cubic capacity of the building in respect of which the rent which is being paid has been reduced.
The principle underlying the Amendment is that once the courts, by virtue of this Bill, have reduced the rent payable by the tenant in actual occupation, then proportionately that reduction in liability should be passed up the scale to the immediate landlord, the longer lease, the very long lease, the holder of the improved ground rent and the holder of the ultimate ground rent. As things stand at present, to take the very simple case of the ground rent, the tenant is under the liability to pay to the ground landlord, when, in fact, on the other side, nothing is coming to him from the property. If he disclaims, he loses all possible benefit from the right he has in the land, and it is no answer to say that the holder of the ground rent, the ultimate freeholder, also loses everything, because in his case he still retains the land. The intermediate rights have, on the basis of disclaimer, been completely extinguished. It has been suggested that interests like ground rents and improved ground rents ought to be considered as something different from the ordinary rack rent paid by the sitting tenant. They are an investment secured on the whole of the property, and they are, by the definition in this Bill, less than the lettable value of the land, plus the property upon it. In law it is right but in fact the security upon which these ground rents and improved ground rents have been created is not just the security of the piece of land, but the security of the piece of land upon which a house has been built or upon which something is to be built. When the building has gone or is half gone, the conditions underlying the security have been changed, and the ground landlord and others with intermediate rights ought to take their share of the knock all the way up to the sitting tenant, who has to take it any way.
In the Amendment before the Committee there is included the word "mortgage." It says:
Reduce pro rata any rent, charge or mortgage interest.

I would willingly submit to a ruling that matters of mortgages as a whole fall outside the. scope of the Bill. I have included this term in the Amendment because, as no doubt the Committee will be aware, in a great many building society mortgages there is what is called a determining clause, which makes the buyer of the house a tenant of the building society. Although there is room for improvement in the position between mortgagor and mortgagee in general I do not seek to force that into the Amendment but merely to cover the case where the mortgagor is the tenant of the mortgagee.

The Attorney-General: I do not quite understand the idea behind this Amendment, but I think that, on the whole, it would be a mistake and that it is much better to leave the principal Act to operate in the case of the leases which are left under it, than to try to impinge on results which arise under this Measure. If a tenancy goes to the court as a short tenancy, there seems little doubt that the decision of the court would be accepted, although perhaps it is not right to bind the landlord. The landlord himself may be the lessee and I think it would be much better to leave these people to deal with their rights, as they can under the principal Act. If a house is unfit and a person wants to disclaim, he can do so, but I think that the idea of carrying this reduction of rent on up the hierarchy would be open to technical objection. A superior landlord would say, "I was not a party to these proceedings, and I ought not to be fined."

Sir R. Tasker: I agree that the ground landlord should share the burden, but I am unable to agree with the argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved it. He seemed unable to distinguish between ground rent and rack rent. Under the ordinary ground rent created for the shortest term, say, 80 years—it is usually 99 years—the rent will, generally speaking, be constantly rising while the ground rent will be static, and, therefore, I do not see that the two are at all comparable. Under the principal Act, as I see it, if a house is demolished the tenant recovers compensation through the channels prescribed in the Act but there is nothing in the Bill to compel him at once to rebuild the premises. Therefore, if the Amendment is agreed to, the ground landlord


might say, "These premises have been demolished. My ground rent has ceased and I am disinclined to rebuild." Therefore, as far as he is concerned it will be sterile until the expiration of the term. If the Amendment is agreed to it will be necessary, I submit, to draft another Clause of the Bill to compel a person who has been compensated to spend the money in re-establishing the premises.

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) is probably aware that the War Damage Commission have the right to give compensation on certain conditions. I would say that an essential condition should be that the lessee of property which had been bombed, if he receives compensation, should reinstate or give up his lease. What my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) was aiming at was to reduce the rent for a period during which the lessee could not rebuild. During the war he cannot get a licence to rebuild and perhaps after the war he cannot do so, but neither can the ground landlord do so either and, therefore, both will be put in the same position as regards reinstating the hereditament on the site. What my hon. Friend says to the Attorney-General is, "We do not want a system of disclaimer whereby we can, as we know, get remission of ground rent. We want some easier form. We do not want to have to surrender our whole rights in order to get rid of our liability to pay ground rent." I suggest that that is a very fair argument.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert:
and does not exclude a house or part of a house so let by reason only that part of the premises is used as a shop or office or for business, trade or professional purposes.
This is to bring within the provisions of the Clause property part of which is recognised as a shop.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 42, leave out "weekly," and insert "short."

In line 43, after "tenant" insert "to the landlord."

In line 44, leave out from "with," to end of line, and insert "his."

In page 3, leave out lines 4 to 12, and insert:
 ' short tenancy' means any tenancy or subtenancy which the tenant is entitled to determine at any time by a notice expiring not later than the end of the next complete quarter or the next complete period of three months of the tenancy, and, in a case where a person is holding over any land, which he previously held under a short tenancy, by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939, the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1939 to 1941, or the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Act, 1941, he shall be deemed to be holding the land under a short tenancy." — [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2. — (Conditional notice of retention.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out from the beginning to "in," in line 30, and to insert:
As soon as the War Damage Commission have determined whether the payment under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941.
This is the first of a series of Amendments which do little more than make for correctness in wording. They make it clear that the War Damage Commission should inform tenants of their determination where payment is made as a cost of works payment or as a value payment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 31, after "relates," insert:
is to be a payment of cost of works or a value payment.

In line 32, leave out from the beginning, to "their," and insert:
serve a notice on the tenant stating.

In line 32, leave out "thereupon," and insert:
if the Commission determine to make a value payment.

In line 37, after "which," insert "notice of."

In line 38, leave out "notified," and insert "served ''1'—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out "seven," and to insert "fourteen."
We thought that the period of seven days was rather short and therefore we propose that it should be 14 days.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 13, leave out "seven," and insert "fourteen." — [The Attorney-General]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the end, to insert:
"(4) Where a tenant has served a conditional notice of retention, his obligation under Section ten of the principal Act to render fit the land comprised in the lease shall, pending the notification under Sub-section (2) of this Section of the War Damage Commission's determination with respect to the kind of payment to be made in respect of the war damage to the land, be deemed to be limited to an obligation to take—
(a) such steps as may be necessary from time to time for the purpose of enabling the Commission to make the said determination; and
(b)such steps as are reasonably practicable to limit the extent of the war damage and to secure that, if the Commission determine that the payment is to be a payment of cost of works, the necessary works will be executed without delay;
and any question arising under Section ten of the principal Act as to whether there has been unreasonable delay on the part of the tenant in rendering the land fit shall be determined accordingly."
Under this Clause, a man can serve what is called a conditional notice of retention. Under the principal Act, if he served a notice of retention, he undertook to make the premises fit as soon as practicable. Under the conditional notice of retention, that obligation is contingent upon his getting a cost-of-works payment from the War Damage Commission. Therefore, it would be unreasonable if the original obligation were left unmodified, because a person ought not to be called upon actually to do repairs until he gets a decision from the War Damage Commission. On the other hand, it is right that he should be put under an obligation to take such steps as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the Commission to make a determination, and it is also right that he should be under an obligation to limit the effects of war damage as far as possible by carrying out necessary temporary works without delay. This Amendment places those two obligations upon him, in substitution for the original obligation, until the War Damage Commission make their determination.

Mr. Spens: I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether this Clause as it stands

is not capable of abuse by a tenant. It appears that a tenant can serve a conditional notice of retention for even the slightest bit of damage and thereby put himself in the position of retaining the premises and paying no rent until the Commission's decision is given, even though a very small expenditure would make the place perfectly fit. I suggest that that is a point worthy of further consideration before we reach the Report stage.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this matter, which I will look into.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 30, leave out ".further."

In line 30, after "damage," insert "on a subsequent occasion."

In line 33, leave out "further."

In line 33, after the first "damage," insert "on the subsequent occasion."

In line 33, at the end, insert:
and the reference in Sub-section (4) of this Section to the determination of the War Damage Commission shall be construed as including a reference to their determination in respect of the war damage on the subsequent occasion.''— [The Altorney-General.]

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at the end, to add:
(7) Where a notice of disclaimer bas been served, or is deemed to have been served, by a tenant before the date of the passing of this Act, he may, within three months from that date, serve a conditional notice of retention upon his landlord and such notice shall operate as from the date when he gave notice of dislaimer provided, nevertheless, that the tenant shall indemnify the landlord for any loss sustained by the landlord through acting upon the disclaimer.
Provision has been made in this Clause for making certain alterations retrospective. The previous Sub-section contains a provision by which what was originally a notice of retention can be turned into a conditional notice of retention. The object of this Amendment, which is the converse of the last Sub-section, is to enable a person who originally gave a notice of disclaimer to turn it into a notice of retention. There is; a very serious gap in the legislation, because, up to the time when the War Damage Act was passed, it was quite impossible


for anybody to know what form the compensation for war damage would take, and it was legitimate for anybody to assume that the payment of compensation would be made to each individual who had suffered damage in proportion to the loss incurred by him. In fact, the Act was framed on a different basis. It is only in cases where there is a so-called total loss that a value payment is made, but it is apportioned among the persons who have an interest in the property.
In other cases, where a cost-of-works payment is made, it is made to the person who actually carries out the repairs. Nobody could have anticipated beforehand that such a position was likely to arise, and it was a legitimate assumption for anybody to make that in this legislation provision would be made for the com? pensation to be paid in every case to the person who had suffered the damage. If one grants that, then people were entitled to assume that the best and wisest course was to give a notice of disclaimer because they would receive compensation for the loss they had suffered. They now find that they are in a different position because of the Act. I suggest it is only equitable that they should be given an opportunity to alter their conditions in accordance with that legislation, subject to the proviso that if the landlord has suffered a loss by reason of having acted upon the notice of disclaimer given to him, he should be compensated. I realise the objections which there are, as a general rule, to retrospective legislation, but the necessity for it has been admitted in the preceding sub-section of the Bill, and I submit that the case with which I am now dealing is equally deserving of consideration and that here the processes of justice are just as much at stake.

The Attorney-General: Whenever Parliament alters the law it may happen that persons have taken steps under the law as it stood which they would not have taken if they had known of the impending change. The broad principle upon which we proceed is that we cannot reopen past transactions. There is some exception made to that in the Bill in that it provides that an absolute notice of retention served under the principal Act can be turned into a conditional notice. To that extent I agree it may be retrospective, but nothing essential will be altered

regarding what has happened in the past. Under the notice of retention the tenant retains the lease and ceases to pay rent and is under an obligation to repair when practicable. All that the conditional element brings about is, if, at some future date, the War Damage Commission say they cannot give a cost-of-works payment, then it can be treated as a notice of disclaimer. I recognise that people were in a difficulty in knowing what was the best thing to do before there was any war damage scheme, but I think it would be impracticable now to reopen the matter or set aside acts of disclaimer which may have been done as long as a year ago. I appreciate that my hon. Friend's Amendment contains provision for any loss, but it would be impracticable in its operation.

Mr. Douglas: I admit the difficulties of the matter. I wish to ask the Attorney-General however, whether he is willing to consider, either here or in the further Bill, which no doubt will be introduced very soon, to deal with war damage legislation, the case in which a man has disclaimed his lease, and feels that by that factor he has lost compensation to which he would have been entitled, and which all goes to his ground landlord. I beg the Attorney-General to realise that other people are entitled to consideration in this world besides ground landlords. The whole ten our of his argument to-day on every Amendment has been that the whole of the loss ought to fall upon the sitting occupier whatever happens. Here I have a case, the facts of which he does not deny. He does not deny that these cases have happened and are bound to happen, and I ask him whether he will not accept this remedy, or some other remedy, if this Amendment is impracticable.

The Attorney-General: First, I must repudiate the suggestion that the tenour of every speech I have made has been to put the whole of the loss on the sitting occupier. No single observation I have made could possibly bear that interpretation. Secondly, I would point out that the ground lessee could not have disclaimed under the principal Act except by leave of the court. I said I realised that people might be in difficulty, but I rather doubt from such experience as I have had, that any appreciable number of persons disclaimed valuable leases. The normal disclaimer was by a rack tenant, or some


similar tenant, who, naturally, was glad to get out of his obligation. I think the vast majority of the cases in which people have taken advantage of this valuable right of getting rid of their obligations were of that kind. I do not want my hon. Friend to think I am unsympathetic to the reasons which led him to put down his Amendment, but if it is a question of compensation, I think that would be a matter to take up with the Treasury or Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger: I think this is the appropriate moment for the Attorney-General to answer the case I put to him earlier, which was supported by other hon. Members. I suggest to him and to the Committee that Clause q is not the appropriate Clause on which to answer the questions about ground landlords. Clause 9 merely repeals Clauses 13 and 14 of the original Act, which excluded ground leases from the operation of the machinery partly embodied under this Clause. I hope the Attorney-General will reply to the points I have raised. I do not want to go over the ground again, but there are one or two additional facts I should like to mention to the Committee. It is possible that when the new War Damage Bill comes up for consideration the value compensation may be reconsidered. My whole case turns on whether the value of compensation is adequate or not. If it is on a cost-of-works basis, then the lessee would retain and should reinstate the premises at the appropriate moment. In the case of a value payment, I fear, as do many of my hon. Friends, that it would be entirely inadequate. If, as is possible, the value payment may be amended in the next Bill or some future Bill, the whole matter may be left over and the lessee may not be forced to make a decision as to disclaiming his lease, until he knows from the War Damage Commission what type of compensation he is going to receive.
Another point is this. How soon does the Attorney-General think the War Damage Commission will notify the lessee of the type of payment he will receive? If they do not notify him until after the war, it will partly meet my case, because

it will give time for reconsideration of the terms of compensation under the value payment. I urge upon the Attorney-General not to dismiss the arguments which have been put before him, just because it is a question of altering a settled state of affairs. I know it is cutting across all the doctrines and principles of common law—the observation of contracts entered into by willing buyers and willing sellers. We are in difficult conditions, and I suggest we must make allowance for that unfortunate class of people who may be heavily penalised by an act of war. I submit that the other class, the ground landlords, will not be so penalised, and that their position may be considerably improved owing to the rising value of their sites—at any rate in the urban areas.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not wish to make the same speech three times over, and I think I am bound to ask for permission to speak on Clause 9 when the time comes. There are one or two things which defeat me. I do not understand this continual assumption that the ground landlord cannot possibly suffer. I know people, widowed ladies— [Laughter.]. Do not laugh because I have not yet made the joke. The whole argument on the other side has been based on the extreme case —the little man whose little house has been blown away by a big bomb, and so on. I have been a little man with a little house all my life and I do not want to be blown up by a big bomb. That is equally true in the case of the little man or woman who is endowed, perhaps, with nothing except a ground rent, who has the right to receive so much money from a particular site for a given number of years and who has that as a sole resource. I fully understand the argument that all property is wrong, or that some property is right but this sort of property is wrong, but that does not seem to be at all relevant. The right principle, surely, is that put by the Home Secretary the other day that it should be a sacred instiact not to attach property which is exposed to enemy action. If a person lives entirely upon £200 or £300 arising from a ground rent, what will happen if the building is blown up? First of all, the whole of the rent is lost. I do not understand the hon. Member opposite who seemed to be optimistic enough to suppose that some time, to-morrow, next day, next Monday, or at


any rate next year, we would all know which of us was to get value payment and which rebuilding payment.

Mr. Bellenger: That is quite clear. The War Damage Committee is functioning. In the case of a totally demolished house it will not take it long to say that it will be a value payment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope the hon. Member is right and that it will be done quickly, but I should have thought it very optimistic to be sure that anything except the stuff which is most urgently necessary will be settled until the war is over, and it may be two or three years after the war. Therefore in those cases to which I refer there is the loss for the years of the war, and there may be a loss for some time after the war, before you get your decision and get the rebuilding done. I here is also this loss, that a person in that position cannot deal with what is left to him, because he does not know how long it will be before he is certain whether the lease will be disclaimed or retained. Therefore in most cases a person of this sort would be glad to sell the thing for what was half its value six months ago, or less.

The Deputy-Chairman: This is a very interesting discussion but I should like to ask what it has to do with the Clause.

Mr. Pickthorn: I was. trying to deal with the suggestion that a longer time should be left for the option to be held free for the tenant. I understand the hon. Member's argument is that it should be made longer, and the argument for that request was that, at present, all the loss falls upon the tenant. My argument is designed to show that in some cases the landlord also may be in a position where the loss cannot be borne, and this suggestion of lengthening the epoch of uncertainty, puts an additional burden on the landlord.

The Attorney-General: It is true that the ground lease problem arises to some extent on more than one Clause in the Bill. I will try to confine myself to the extent to which it arises on this Clause. I think in one of our earlier discussions I referred to this Clause as the important one in connection with ground leases, because the provisions in this Clause as to conditional notice of retention are

designed to assist the ground lessee, and indeed any lessee who has a valuable lease, and therefore has a substantial interest in the profits. As soon as the War Damage Act took shape it became clear that a ground lessee, if you were to give him, as the Bill proposes, similar rights to those under the principal Act, as a lessee who, under the principal Act could give notice of disclaimer or retetion, was also obviously in a difficulty. He would not want to disclaim because he had a thing of value, though that would be taken into account if there was a value payment, and if there was a cost of works payment he would have parted with the thing of value and got no further benefit from it.
On the other hand he might say, "I do not want to serve a notice of retention simpliciter, because, if a value payment is made, it will not be enough to build up the castle again, and I have not resources to supplement what I get from the State." So we thought it right to put forward this provision for conditional notice of retention. That seems to me a very valuable right for the ground lessee. What is his position under the Bill? If he is near the end of the term and the building anyhow is getting into rather bad condition, he can disclaim, and it may be that that, on the whole, is the best thing for him. On the other hand, if there is any value in the lease he can serve notice to retain, making it conditional, and therefore knowing that he will not be pledging himself to spend money which he may not have, or may not be able to get. If it is a total loss he will get his share of the value payment, that share taking into account the fact that his conditional notice of retention has become a disclaimer, and, if he disclaims, the share of the value payment takes that into account.
I feel it difficult to see what can be done fairer than that. My hon. Friend behind me may say at a later stage that, so far from being hidebound by sanctity of contract and people carrying out their obligations, I have been extremely unfair to the ground landlord. I agree that the ground landlord is in this difficulty compared with other people, that, if he is tied up for a long time and has turned his land into a money interest, and if money decreases in value, as it may well do, it will be a long time before he can, as it were, get his interest revalued in the terms of the then value of money.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think the learned Attorney-General has fully answered my point, which is that at some time this hard-up person, who is not going to get a valuation payment sufficient to rebuild, or in some cases to repay his mortgage, has to make up his mind to retain or disclaim, and probably he will disclaim, but he will still be bound by his mortgage to pay every penny of what he has borrowed on that hereditament, and I say that' is totally unfair.

Mr. Selley: In cases where a small man disclaims, what is the obligation of the mortgagee, either a building society or a private mortgagee, to the ground landlord? Is the mortgagee under an obligation to keep up the ground rent in order to secure full payment for cost-of-works payment, seeing that the original mortgagor may have disclaimed?

The Attorney-General: If the lessee mortgaged his interests the lessee can, of course, give a conditional notice of retention and that stops the rent running. There is no question of the mortgagee having to pay the ground rent.

Mr. Selley: But surely if the mortgagee is a small occupying owner

The Attorney-General: This does not deal with occupying owners.

Mr. Selley: But if he is the occupying owner he is, in the case of his ground landlord, in the same position as a tenant towards a landlord.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3. £ (Leases comprising separate hereditaments.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move in page 5, line 2, to leave out "notify," and to insert "serve a notice on."
This Clause deals with cases where the lease applies to several hereditaments. The Amendment is one of a series of Amendments which are dealing with two separate points. Some of them are points really of machinery concerning the serving of notices. Others provide a time table for the actions which may be taken by a tenant under the Clause. I do not think the Committee will want me to go into all the points in detail, but we have

drafted a watertight time table for various proceedings which may be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 4, after "may," insert
within one month of the date on which the notice was served.

In line 18, after "if," insert "notice of."

In line 19, leave out "notified," and insert "served."

In line 22, leave out "seven days," and insert "one month."

In line 22, after "which," insert "notice of."

In line 23, leave out "notified," and insert "served."

In line 35, at the end, add
and notice thereof had been served one month after the date on which it was served, or, in a case where an application has been made under Sub-section (1) of this Section, on such later date as the court may fix. — [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5. — (Obligation to reinstate in case where payment of cost of works is made.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, to leave out from "determine," to "under," in line 20, and to insert "that the payment."
With the leave of the Chairman and of the Committee I would ask that this Amendment and three others following may be considered together. The first two Amendments are drafting Amendments, and the third excludes from Subsection (1)the case where there is no obligation under the principal Act, because that is dealt with later.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 6, leave out line 22, and insert:
is to be a payment of cost of works, any obligation (whether of the landlord or tenant).

In line 23, leave out from "fit," to "shall," in line 26.

In line 28, leave out "under." — [The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, at the end, to add:
(4) Where the War Damage Commission determine that the payment under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of any-war damage to land comprised in a lease is to be a payment of cost of works, and neither the landlord nor the tenant is under an obligation under the principal Act to render the land fit, the foregoing provisions of this section shall, notwithstanding section one of the principal Act, apply to any obligation to repair under the lease (whether of the landlord or the tenant) which would but for the said section one require him to make good the war damage or the greater part thereof, in like manner as if it were such an obligation to render the land fit; and any question arising under. this subsection in relation to any lease shall, on the application either of the landlord or the tenant, be determined by the court.
(5) Where, by reason of the fact that any land comprised in a lease or any part of such land has been sub-let, two or more persons are under an obligation by virtue of this section to reinstate the land, any landlord or tenant, whether under the lease or under any under lease, may, in default of agreement between all the parties to the lease or any under-lease, apply to the court for a direction as to who is to carry out the said obligation; and the court, after consideration of the terms of the lease and any under-lease and the nature of the interests comprised therein, shall give such a direction, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly, subject to the modification that any application under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section may be made by any landlord or tenant, whether under the lease or under any underlease, and in the case of an application under subsection (2) it shall be referred to and determined by the court instead of by the War Damage Commission.
(6) Where any person is under an obligation by virtue of this section to reinstate land comprised in a lease and the land sustains war damage on a subsequent occasion before the reinstatement is completed, the foregoing provisions of this section shall, unless they cease to have effect in relation to the lease by reason of the withdrawal of the notice of retention or the notice to avoid disclaimer under section twelve of the principal Act, be suspended in their application to the lease pending the determination by the War Damage Commission with respect to the kind of payment to be made under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of the damage on the subsequent occasion, and—
(a) if the Commission determine that the said payment is not to be a payment of costs of works, the foregoing provisions of this section shall cease to have effect in relation to the lease;
(b) if the Commission determine that the said payment is to be a payment of cost of works, the said provisions shall again apply to the lease as from the date of their determination, and have effect as if the reference to the occurrence of the damage were construed as a reference to the earliest occasion

on which war damage occurred to the land, and the reference to the amount of the payment of cost of works were construed as a reference to the aggregate amount of payments of cost of works made in respect of war damage to the land."
This Amendment proposes to add three new Sub-sections to this Clause. It is a Clause which deals with the obligation to reinstate in cases where a claim of cost of works is made, and it is very important that there should be exact and accurate provisions, in various complicated cases which may arise, for putting that liability on some one. Otherwise the lessors and lessees might disagree and nothing would be done. The first new Sub-section deals with the point where neither the landlord nor the tenant is by reason of anything done under the principal Act liable to make the land fit.
This provides that the person who is under a repairing covenant is liable to reinstate. It will be settled by some notice or other served under the principal Act. The second Sub-section deals with cases which are always cropping up in which there has been a chain of incidents and the obligation to reinstate might fall upon a number of persons who would have rights over against each other. No doubt in most cases the matter would be settled by someone who has the greatest interest in getting the property reinstated coming forward, but we thought it right to say that, if agreement was not reached between all parties concerned, the court should have power to say who should carry out the work. The fast Sub-section deals with another troublesome problem which is always turning up, which is where the property sustains further damage after the War Damage Commission has determined to make a payment.

Mr. Spens: The proposed new Sub-section (4) depends, as I understand it, upon the lease containing an obligation to repair, either on the landlord or on the tenant. There is the exceptional case in which the lease does not contain any such obligation and there should be machinery to deal with it.

The Attorney-General: I will look into the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5. — (Provisions where tenant retains lease and value payment is Made.)

Amendments made:

In page 7, line 13, leave out "notify," and insert "serve a notice on."

In line 16, leave out "notification," and insert "determination." — [The A ttorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, to leave out from "payment," to "shall," in line 39.
This and the following Amendments are really little more than drafting Amendments. They make it clear that all obligations to repair will be discharged when the hypothetical tenant who has given the unconditional notice of retention succeeds in getting the value payment and carries out the work.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 7, line 42, leave out "the obligation of the tenant,"and insert "any obligation under the principal Act."

In line 43, leave out from "be," to the end of line 44, and insert "discharged."— [The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 44, at the end, to insert:
Provided that—
(i) this Sub-section shall not apply to any share of the value payment apportionable to a lease which has determined before the said proposals have been carried out, not being a lease the tenant under which is, by virtue of an unconditional notice of retention, under an obligation to render the land fit;
(ii) the court may, on the application of any tenant under a lease (not being such a lease as aforesaid) derived from the term created by the lease of the tenant who carried out the proposals, direct that the whole or any part of the share of the value payment apportionable to the lease of the applicant shall be paid as mentioned in Section nine of the War Damage Act, 1941, and not in the manner aforesaid."
The Clause as at present drafted excludes the interests of all sub-tenants of the tenant who carries out the proposal and, as a corollary, the share of any such sub-tenant in the value payment is not paid over to the tenant carrying out the proposal. This was a somewhat rough and ready solution and in some cases might even have been unjust. We therefore propose in this Amendment that a

tenant may apply to the courts, which may direct that the part of the share of the value payment apportionable to him shall be paid to him instead of to the person undertaking the work.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 8, line 3, leave out from "lease," to "and," in line 4, and insert "comprising the land"

In line 5, leave out from "simple," to the end of line 6, and insert "or of any lease comprising the land."

Leave out lines 7 to 10.

In line 21, after "and," insert "notice of."

In line 23, leave out "notified," and insert "served." — [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9. — (Application of principal Act to ground leases.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 21, at the end, to add:
"(2) A notice of disclaimer, a notice of retention, or a notice to elect may be served under Section four of the principal Act in respect of war damage to land comprised in a ground lease, whether the damage occurred before or after the passing of this Act.
(3) The following provisions shall apply with respect to notices served before, or proceedings pending at, the passing of this Act: —
(a)a notice of disclaimer, a notice of retention or a notice to elect served before the passing of this Act in relation to any lease shall not be deemed to be of no effect on the ground that the lease is a ground lease, unless the court has so determined before the passing of this Act under Section fourteen of the principal Act, and in that case the determination shall be without pre judice to the serving of a new notice;
(b)where proceedings under Section thirteen or Section fourteen of the principal Act are pending at the passing of this Act they shall be discontinued upon such terms as the court thinks just, and, in the case of proceedings under the said Section fourteen relating to a notice of disclaimer or a notice to elect, the court may extend the period allowed under the principal Act within which a notice to avoid disclaimer may be served by the landlord, or, as the case may be, the notice to elect is to be complied with by the tenant, to such date as the court may fix;
but nothing in this Section shall affect any order of the court made before the passing of this Act under Section thirteen of the principal Act."


The first part of this Amendment is to make clear that which we always intended, namely, that the ground lessee, who previously could not serve notice of disclaimer or retention, shall have the advantage of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, in respect of damage done before the Bill becomes an Act. That is to say, it does not only apply to damage done to ground lessee property after the Act becomes law. That is what we always intended, but it was suggested that it might not be clear, so we move this new Sub-section, which makes it quite clear. Sub-section (3) is a series of transitional provisions which deal with the cases where notices of disclaimer or retention have been served before the passing of the Bill and have not been declared by the court to be of no effect. It deals with cases where proceedings under Section 13 or 14 of the principal Act are pending. Where an order of the Court has been made, of course, it is impossible to interfere, but we have made provision, where proceedings are pending, that the court can terminate them on such terms as to costs and so on as seem just. I do not think there is anything controversial about this transitional provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pickthorn: I Beg to move, in page 9, line 21, at the end, to add:
(2) Where a ground tenant serves a notice of retention and ceases to pay his ground rent, that ground rent when it revives shall be the sum then corresponding in value to the ground rent on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine; and if the ground landlord and tenant cannot agree what that sum should be the question shall be decided by the court.
I will be as quick as I can, but I think there is a point of some importance on which principles ought to be made clear and that I ought to do my best to make them clear. To go back to the beginning, if hon. Members will read the Uthwatt Report, they will see on page 13 of their findings:
The lessee is the person to whom the buildings to all intents and purposes belongs. In our view a lessee at a ground rent should, save in exceptional cases, be treated rather as part owner of the property than as the lessee of property belonging to another. Our suggestions, therefore, are directed to apportioning the resulting loss from war damage between the lessor and the lessee. We suggest that the general relief from liability to repair war damage should apply to a lessee at a ground rent with the result that, in the event

of destruction by or in consequence of war action, the lessor would be deprived of the enhanced value of the reversion by reason of the existence of the building when the lease falls in. Subject to this one exception we suggest that the lessee should in the normal case continue subject to all his obligations as to rent and otherwise which are incident to his lease.
They recommended that lessees should have the right to apply to the court for leave to disclaim. That was the recommendation, and how right was that recommendation was illustrated by the misunderstanding recently between the Attorney-General and an hon. Member. One was speaking of owners, and the other said that the matter did not apply to owners but to landlords and tenants. That indicated how right the Uthwatt Committee was about the distinction between the long lease ground rent and the lease with which this Bill and the principal Act deal.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this Amendment is in order? We on this side have displayed great restraint on this Bill, but this Amendment goes outside the whole principle of the war damage legislation and seeks to introduce into our discussions something which would enable us to discuss the value of the currency at any given date. We could discuss the whole principle of inflation and deflation on every type of war legislation, and I suggest that this is not an Amendment on which to discuss it.

The Deputy-Chairman: That point was considered. It is true that such a discussion could take place on this Amendment. I cannot rule it out of Order. But I trust that the hon. Member will not go deeply into that issue.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not approach the point which the hon. Member mentioned. The point which I was seeking to make was that the ground landlord was hardly treated by this Bill. I promised to be short, and not to be technical about inflation and so forth. The principal Act carried out those recommendations, mainly by Section 13. There has been no suggestion, I think, in Scotland—and I have made the best inquiries that I can— that anybody could, with any justice, require anything further. The only reason that I have heard suggested for going further is that the War Damage Act gives the landlord something more than


he had before, and that the tenant, therefore, should be given something to balance that up. That does not seem to me a good argument, for many reasons. In so far as the landlord gets the advantage of the rebuilding payments, and as his building is more likely to be rebuilt, he loses whatever advantage there is in the chance of re-entering upon his land earlier than he otherwise would have done.
This Debate has in the main been conducted on the basis—in spite of the laughter when I mentioned small holdings just now—of the small man. I cannot see any reason why any person—and there are certainly such persons—whose whole resources arise out of ground rents should not be considered. A small man whose house is hit does not lose his all. Re gains, for instance, in that he ceases to pay rent. [An Hon. Member: "A negative gain."] Yes, but it is some gain. The ground landlord, if this Clause goes through as it stands, loses his rent, and has no negative gain, no gain of that sort at all. I am not in the least wedded to the Amendment which I have put down. I do not say that that is the proper way of doing it. But I think there is a great deal to be said for it. A great deal has been said to-day about the principle of sanctity of contract.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot raise the whole issue of that question on the Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry. I suppose the strictest point on the Amendment is that a person who has entered into a bargain for a given number of pounds over a given period of years has taken a bet that the given number of pounds will not go down in value very fast. That bet has been upset by action of the King's enemies and by legislation. It seems inequitable that all the loss which arises in that way should fall upon one party, who should lose everything because the bomb falls where it does, and should get nothing out of it at all. He loses his rent, he loses the opportunity of dealing with his property, because nobody knows when he is going to re-enter upon it. I suggest that if we are trying to spread the burden, there should not be one party who gets nothing and loses all.

The Attorney-General: I think my hon. Friend feels that, in this general

hierarchy of rack tenants and sub-leases, semi-rack tenants, ground leases, ground landlords and so on, the ground landlord is to some extent in a position of special disadvantage if advantage is taken of his rights to retain and to disclaim and so on. The ground lessee is unlikely to disclaim if there is anything left of value in the lease. If he retains, he will retain on the basis that it is conditional on the cost of works. Again, if there is anything in the value of the lease, the Commission will give cost of works because that is the general test.

Mr. Bellenger: Even if the building is demolished?

The Attorney-General: That is the general criterion of any cost of works. Allowing, as I do, that there is some force in that, if the tenant retains, he, of course, has his 80 or 90 years, and it might be much longer in his case before he could get the advantage of any appreciation in land values. That is why we moved this Clause. I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) thinks about Clause 9. He thinks it to be right. He indicated that fact very forcibly to me one day at Question time. I believe that it is right, and I certainly believe that it would be quite incompatible if you had an Amendment on the lines of that which is on the Paper. To say that one particular person who suffered financial damage is to have his contract safeguarded, having regard to the changed value of money, would, I suggest, be quite incompatible. I realise that my hon. Friend will not be satisfied. He sees an injustice here, but I do not think that there is an injustice. There is hardship, and this is the fair way of dealing with the position.

Mr. Bellenger: I want to say by way of postscript that the hon. Member and I are miles apart in our understanding of the position of ground landlord and ground lessee. Whatever happens to the widow who has £200 or £300 a year coming in from ground rents, who suddenly loses that income because of the operation of the war, nothing can take her land away from her. She has that capital left, but the man who happens not to have invested his money in ground rents, but to have put it into his home, is absolutely on the rocks when the assess-


ment of his position is made and he has not even the bit of land to fall back upon. That is my answer to the hon. Member.

Mr. Spens: I am bound to say that on this subject I am many miles away from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I hope that this is not to be the last word about this matter. So much depends upon what happens in the future. What the War Commission does will make a very great difference, and I am absolutely certain, as my right hon. and learned Friend realises, that some extremely hard cases are bound to arise in the distribution of this burden. Many of us feel that perhaps there has been an undue bias in favour of those who are in the happy position of owning these leases. The ground lessee is very much nearer the owner than the ordinary rack rent lessee. I feel that ground lessees should have been dealt with as if they were part owners of the property. At present I think the ground lessee has been put into the position in which he is a great deal more part owner than the landlord, and one knows how few are the ground landlords in this country whose land, which will always remain, is not mortgaged and charged. That process is going on rapidly every day of the week. To think that the ground landlord, who is now to be deprived of the ground rent, will be in a happy position is a complete fallacy as the facts are at the present time. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and learned Friend will keep his mind open and see how this Clause acts in the future. It may be necessary in the future not to deal with the situation on the lines proposed in the Amendment, but to give the ground landlord some assistance in dealing with the difficulties which, I am absolutely certain, exist at the present time.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10. — (Relief from obligation to insure against war damage.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, at the end, to insert:
and any proceedings pending at the passing of this Act relating to any such obligation to insure land against war damage shall be discontinued upon such terms as the court thinks just.

This is one of a series of Amendments intended to remove certain doubts as to the operation of this Clause. I do not think it raises any point of principle.

Mr. Garro Jones: There is one point of principle which I think might be elucidated, and that is with regard to the position of those insurance companies which purported to insure against war damage and have collected a considerable number of premiums. They are to be relieved from their obligations without any obligation, apparently, to return the premiums. Has that been thought of, and what is the proposal of the Government?

The Attorney-General: I will certainly look into that, but I understood that the problem was not that of an insurance company purporting to insure against war damage but contracts entered into between mortgagor and mortgagee, and possibly landlord and tenant, at the time that this insurance was possible, and then when insurance companies would not take war insurance the mortgagor and mortgagee were able to say, "You have broken your covenant because you did undertake absolute liability." If there is any question of relief to insurance companies, I will look into it, but I do not think that is the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 9, line 27, leave out "nothing in this section shall," and insert "the foregoing provision shall not."

In line 27, leave out "anything lawfully done," and insert "the exercise."

In line 28, after "Act," insert "of any right or remedy arising."

In line 29, at the end, add:
but the court may, on the application of any person prejudiced by the exercise of any such right or remedy, grant such relief as it thinks just.''— [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11. — (Powers of entry of landlord and tenant of damaged land.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, after "any," to insert "building or works on."
This Amendment and the other Amendments in my name to this Clause are designed to deal with the problem of


a house which has been damaged, where the tenant has- gone, the house is locked up, and no one can enter it, whereas it is vitally important that somebody should get: in to do temporary repairs and prevent further damage. As originally drafted, the provision dealt with that point, and these Amendments extend the provision so as to make it apply not only to the landlord but to any other person interested, and to make it clear that in the last resort, if urgent repairs are required and the tenant or occupier cannot be got at, forcible entry may be made. There must be many cases in London, for instance, after a bad blitz, where it is vital that there should be immediate entry to premises.

Sir Herbert Williams: I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the wording of his Amendment will cover the point which I intended to cover in the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper— in line 30, to leave out "a lease," and to insert "any tenancy." It seems to me that the word "lease" is restrictive, but it may be that the proper interpretation of that word covers the point.

The Attorney-General: I have looked into that matter and the definition docs cover the point which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 9, line 30, after "is," insert "or are."

In line 31, leave out from "damage," to the end of line 34, and insert:
 and urgent repairs to the building or works arc necessary to prevent deterioration and arc not being executed, any person who has the fee simple in the land or a lease of the land or is a mortgagee of the fee simple or a lease, or any person authorised by any such person as aforesaid may, if he cannot obtain permission to enter upon the building or works from the person having control thereof, or cannot obtain such permission without unreasonable delay, enter upon the building or works for the purpose of executing the necessary repairs, and may use such force as is reasonably necessary for effecting entry." — [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13. — (Interpretation.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, at the end, to insert:
" (3) It is hereby declared for the removal of doubt that the expression ' landlord,' as defined by section twenty-four of the principal Act includes, in relation to any lease, a mortgagee of the lessor's interest who is in possession of that interest or has appointed a receiver of the rents and profits thereof.
(4) In sub-section (2) of section ten of the principal Act (which defines the expression ' rent '), for the words 'any periodical sum payable by the tenant in connection with the occupation of the land comprised in the lease ' there shall be substituted the words ' any periodical sum payable by the tenant to the landlord in connection with his tenancy,' and the references to the definition of the said expression in sections eleven and twelve of the principal Act shall be construed accordingly."
This Amendment, which is in two parts, makes it clear, first of all, that the definition of landlord includes the mortgagee in possession. The second part of the Amendment makes some amendments which have already been explained.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Notification by War Damage Commission of determinations, etc)

(1)As soon as the War Damage Commis—sion have determined what kind of payment (if any) is to be made under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of any war damage to land comprised in a lease, they shall, if the landlord or tenant of the land has made a request in writing to be notified thereof and they are not required to notify him under Section two of this Act, serve a notice on him of their determination.
(2)Any copy of a notice required under this Act to be served on the War Damage Com mission, and any request in writing made to the Commission under the last foregoing Sub section, may be served or made by delivering it to an officer of the Commission at any office of the Commission, or by sending it in a pre paid registered letter addressed to the Com mission at any office of the Commission. — [The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause incorporates the usual procedure where a landlord or tenant re-


quests that he shall be not notified of the determination of the War Damage Commission.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE (Determination of disputes as to whether premises have been rendered fit.)

Where, —
(a) the land comprised in any lease has been rendered unfit by war damage and a notice of retention or a notice to avoid disclaimer has been served in respect of the lease; and
(b) repairs have been carried out to the land;
either the landlord or the tenant may apply to the court to determine whether the land has been rendered fit and, if so, the date on which it was rendered fit—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause enables either the landlord or the tenant to' apply to the court to determine whether the land has been rendered fit, and if so, the date on which it was rendered fit. If this provision were not inserted and the rent was over the county court limit, there might be some difficulty.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Provision as to Northern Ireland.)

The power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, conferred by Section twenty-five of the principal Act and extended by this Act, to make laws for purposes similar to the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, shall include power to make the like provision with respect to the War Damage Commission and the like' modification of certain provisions of the War Damage Act, 1941, as is made by this Act. — [The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to enable the Parliament of Northern Ireland to deal with the matters contained in Clauses 2 to 8 in the Bill, which are themselves

amendments of the War Damage Act. The Parliament of Northern Ireland cannot normally, without an express power, amend an Act of the House applying to Northern Ireland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE— (Provision in case where land sustains damage other than war damage.)

(1) Where—
(a) any land comprised in a lease has been reinstated or redeveloped under this Act, or has otherwise been rendered fit in pursuance of an obligation imposed under the principal Act;
(b) the cost of reinstatement, of redevelopment or of rendering the land fit has been increased by reason of any damage or dilapidation occurring to the land, not being war damage or ordinary wear and tear; and
(c) the person by whom the land was reinstated, redeveloped or rendered -fit would have been entitled, but for Section one of the principal Act, to require any person, being his landlord or tenant under any lease comprising the land, to make good the said damage or dilapidation or any part thereof, or to indemnify him in respect of the cst of making good the said damage or dilapidation or any part thereof; 
the first-mentioned person shall be entitled to recover from his said landlord or tenant the amount by which the said cost has been so increased, or, as the case may be, such part of the said increase as is attributable to the said part of the damage or dilapidation.
(2)Any person from whom any sum has been recovered under this Section shall have the like right (if any) to recover that sum or any part thereof from any person, being his landlord or tenant under any lease comprising the land, as if he himself had reinstated, re developed or rendered fit the land.
(3)Nothing in this Section shall be taken to affect any right, whether under the Prevention of Fire (Metropolis) Act, 1776, or otherwise, in respect of money payable under a policy of insurance in respect of any such damage or dilapidation as aforesaid, or any right to damages for a failure to insure land in respect thereof, but any amount recovered by any person, or made available for the re instatement redevelopment or rendering fit of the land by any person, by virtue of any such right, shall be deducted from the amount recoverable by that person under this Section in respect of that damage or dilapidation. — [The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The point with which this Clause deals is a little troublesome, but we have to deal with it. Let us take the case where a house is damaged by a bomb. The man then serves a notice of retention, and makes himself liable to do the repairs. He makes himself liable to make the house fit, and not simply to repair the damage which the bomb has done. If, after this has happened, a normal civil fire takes place, that increases the damage, and the premises have then been damaged by two causes, the bomb and the fire, and the man has to reinstate the property. The Clause seeks to deal with this problem in the following way. By Sub-section (3), if it is a question of a fire and there is a fire policy, nothing in the Clause prevents the general law from operating, under which a man who repairs fire damage can get the appropriate sum from the insurance company. I think the principle is right that a man should be able to have these rights in respect of normal damage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time; and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Suspension of rent in case of war damage.)

If and so long as any land is unfit by reason of war damage, no rent shall be payable under any tenancy affecting that land:

Provided that if part of any such land is capable of beneficial occupation there shall be payable under any such tenancy such rent as may be agreed between landlord and tenant; or, in default of agreement, as may be fixed by the court. — [Mr. Douglas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not know whether the Attorney-General would like to shorten the proceedings by accepting this Clause. If he did so, it would simplify matters very much. As we have already discussed this matter, and in order to let this stage of the Bill be completed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 43]

Orders of the Day — REPAIR OF WAR DAMAGE [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Housing (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, and the Essential Buildings and Plant (Repair of War Damage) Act, 1939, it is expedient to authorise
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the amount of the loans made under the two last-mentioned Acts attributable to the provisions (whether retrospective or not) of the said Act of the present Session;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any increase so attributable in the sums received by way of repayment of such loans.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Resolution Reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the third fixed grant period under the Local Government Act, 1929, and to make provision for the stabilisation of Supplementary Exchequer Grants and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable which is attributable:
(a)to the extension of the said period until such date as Parliament may hereafter determine;
(b)to the stabilisation for the term of the extension of the said period of Supplement ary Exchequer Grants under the Local Government Act, 1929;
(c)to the continuation during the said term of schemes under Section ninety-three of the last-mentioned Act in respect of maternity and child welfare services."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RACE MEETINGS (USE OF PETROL).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Shinwell: I am raising a matter to which I directed attention the other day, not in any sort of antagonism towards my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who occupies a position of great responsibility and has to balance one opinion as against another. I have a shrewd suspicion, for what it may be worth, that if he were left to his own mental devices, he would range himself on my side. Nor do I raise this question animated by a kill-joy spirit. I fully


recognise the importance of sport, which is a characteristic feature of British national life, and I must confess that on occasions I have myself participated in sporting events.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed', without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Shinwell: I have participated in sporting events of various kinds. Indeed, in order to indicate that I am not obsessed by any puritanical spirit, I confess that there have been occasions, not within recent years, when I have ventured an odd shilling on a horse, I assure the House without any measure of success. Nor do I subscribe to the idea which has been canvassed in some quarters that all recreation and all holidays should be abandoned. Even in war-time, in the stress and trial of critical events, there must be accommodation for recreation, sport and holiday making. That is not the issue that I raise in this Debate. But when sporting spectacles on a large scale dip extensively into our resources, that is quite a different thing.
This matter has been raised on several occasions, in the form of Questions, sometimes in perfunctory Debate, through the Press, and elsewhere. Recently there was a sporting spectacle at Newmarket, the venue of the Derby, when it was alleged by certain newspapers that nearly 100,000 people were present. I understand that that allegation was unfounded. It was said that no more than 60,000 attended, and my right hon. Friend in reply to a Question said that not half that number were present. But even if 30,000 people were gathered at Newmarket, it certainly meant an unreasonable use of our resources. It involved the use of buses, trains, private cars and food and drink on an abnormal scale, for on these occasions much more food and drink are consumed than normally, and I understand that it involved the presence of the police, who were specially engaged; and, moreover, I understand—this may be taken note of by the Secretary for Petroleum—that there were present a

large number of petrol spotters, whatever that may mean.
My hon. Friend said the other day that we could not expect to eliminate a large industry, even in the present situation. I recognise that the presence of bloodstock and the training of blood-stock gives employment to trainers, jockeys and others associated with horse-racing, and that that is important. But recently we had an announcement regarding the concentration of industry, and in the course of concentrating industry we eliminated a number of businesses and a large number of traders, and did it without paying any compensation. If we are to eliminate traders in legitimate businesses, depriving them of their livelihood without compensation, why make a song and dance about the elimination of this industry, however important it may be?
I have no desire to eliminate this industry. If the breeding of blood-stock ought to be continued on a large, bona fide scale for post-war purposes, then I see no reason why the Government should not compensate the persons concerned and maintain the blood-stock. I would much rather see the Government indulge in expenditure of that sort than see the present waste of our resources—petrol, transport and the like. It may be asked, If you propose to abandon these horse-racing spectacles, what about other sporting events, what about dog-racing? I was informed that at the Wimbledon greyhound race track goo cars were present on one occasion recently. I regard that as a scandalous state of affairs.

Sir Reginald Blair: How many people were there?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say. There may have been several thousands. I think that is beside the point. I may be asked, What about football matches? Several weeks ago, in Glasgow, where I was attending a conference, there was a football match at which between 60,000 and 70,000 people were present.

Mr. de Rothschild: How many cars were at the meeting?

Mr. Shinwell: I understand there were so many cars in Renfrew Street and Union Street, and in the main streets of the city that there was complete congestion.

Mr. de Rothschild: I meant, How many cars were at your meeting?

Mr. Shinwell: I can assure my hon. Friend that there were no cars at my meeting. Walking is good for the health. It might improve the standard of health of the people of this country, particularly of those who are disposed always to travel in cars, if they walked a little more than they do. I have no objection to football events. I do not care how many people foregather to see football. I have played football and am fond of seeing the game in normal times. I do not object to a race-meeting or a greyhound race meeting or to people attending cinemas and the like, but I do object to the waste of resources involved.
I now direct the attention of the House to a most remarkable document which has come into my possession. It is a prospectus of the Silver-Line Coach tours. It was issued in the seaside resort of Dunoon. There is a circular day tour to Oban, covering a distance of 185 miles, and there arc tours to the Trossachs, to Glencoe, and various other places involving long journeys and consuming a great deal of petrol. But the most amazing thing of all is that on the back page there is a map—a complete map, a detailed map—of the restricted area in Scotland. If I may say so, and I am not using hyperbole, it is really ghastly that these things should occur when we are in such a critical situation. The other clay reference was made in the course of a speech to the loss of an oil tanker in the Atlantic. There were 26. men who had lived for a long time in an open boat. These are tremendous tragedies of the sea. We have no right to allow men to go to sea and sacrifice their lives in order to enable—and I use this expression to the House—a large number of lazy scroungers to enjoy themselves. It is all wrong, and I hope that we shall attend to this matter.
I discovered the other day, when I was making inquiries from some of my hon. Friends, that 500 workpeople were stranded in Glasgow at the Waterloo Street bus station because they could not get a sufficient supply of buses. That may not be due to shortage of petrol. It may be due to shortage of transport, but surely, when there is this difficulty about normal transport for purposes of production, it is all wrong to provide buses to attend race meetings or to indulge in these spectacular tours. I understand that

there has recently been a restriction on the bus services in South Wales, alleged to be due to shortage of petrol. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Petroleum may say that there is no shortage and that plenty of petrol is coming into the country. My response is there may be, but if we have so much that we can afford to allow people to use it, or misuse it, in this fashion, then we do not require to use our oil tankers in order to bring petrol in, at any rate in such vast quantities. We might have fewer oil tankers. There are many oil tankers that can be converted into refrigerators or used for ordinary cargo-carrying purposes.
The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Petroleum said the other day that there was a good deal of wangling. We observed that it had been decided to reduce the basic ration. I wonder whether that is because of all the hubbub that has been going on about Newmarket and other places. He said there was wangling, but that we should leave it to the conscience of these people. Some of those people have no conscience at all. I would not care to leave it to the conscience of people. If people are misusing petrol in a critical period something more seems to be required than leaving it to their personal conscience. We ought to take steps to prevent them from doing these things.

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The question of leaving it to people's conscience was not suggested in regard to wangling. I indicated that the wangling would be pursued by a rigorous enforcement of the Regulations and by co-operation between the police and the Department. I said that the small amount of the basic ration which was left after the reduction would be within the disposition of the individual. That is a completely different affair.

Mr. Shinwell: It does not matter in the least. If there is to be a reduction of the basic ration and what is left has to be left to the conscience of the people, my suggestion is that we reduce the basic ration still further or abolish the supplementary ration. Before I had examined the matter more closely I thought we ought to prevent people from using cars at all for private purposes and confine their use to business purposes, but I recognise that that might be impracticable and that something of the kind might be required.
I ask hon. Members in all solemnity: Do hon. Members and the people in this country realise what we are up against? In normal times I love spectacular events—those glorious cricket matches, those great football events, the flash of the horses as they go by. I love those things, and so do we all. So do the people of the country. But we cannot afford them now.
I am convinced that I represent a very large body of public opinion in saying these things, but I realise that I do not represent every opinion. I gather that from the anonymous letters I receive. I received one this morning bearing the address of a well-known hotel and saying that because I am adopting this attitude my antecedents are now going to be exposed. I am bound to say that that fills me with unalloyed delight. For a long time I have wanted to know a little more about my ancestors, and if somebody will fill in the gaps, nobody will be more pleased than I. But if anybody imagines I am to be deterred by threats of that kind—and the House knows that I am not—he is making a very great mistake. I plead with my right hon. Friend. He has his difficulties; that, I appreciate. He may find it difficult to respond whole-heartedly to the appeal I make to him, an appeal endorsed, I am sure, by many other hon. Members, but I do ask that he should devote himself assiduously to considering whether it is possible to conserve our resources in greater measure.
I believe that these events have a very big effect on morale by causing a slackening off. Why should the workers be called upon to work harder—and we have asked them to work harder—when we can afford this sort of thing? Why should we talk about absenteeism, when this is the real absenteeism? Who were these thousands of people who attended Newmarket the shipyard workers, the miners, the shop assistants? Of course not. They are not the people who can afford to go off in cars and waste their substance on this riotous living, especially in war-time. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend and the Government to make a strong stand on this issue. Some hon. Members and people outside may resent what I have said, but let them face the cold facts. I ask them, Do they really want

to win this war? If they really want to win this war, we shall have to conserve all our resources. We cannot afford to waste or misuse a single thing, and in the circumstances I beg my right hon. Friend to give the matter his most sympathetic consideration.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I would like first of all to thank my hon. Friend for the reasonable and tolerant way in which he has put his point of view. He recognises, as I do, that there is more than one point of view about this matter, and my hon. Friend has been good enough to agree that certain steps have already been taken. Therefore, I have no quarrel whatever with the spirit or with the terms in which my hon. Friend made his statement to the House. It is, of course, the case that, in a number of directions, recreations, amusements and entertainments of one sort and another have inevitably and quite properly been restricted in war-time. The facilities, for example, for football have been very much reduced, both public football and, I should imagine, private local games, owing to grounds being occupied by the military, and other reasons. It is the case that theatrical entertainments, for economic and financial reasons, are not quite as extensive as they were, and it is moreover the case that sports of many kinds have been reduced.
That is inevitable, partly by force of circumstances, partly by deliberate desire, and partly by the fact that the people are very heavily occupied with their work. Indeed, in the case of racing, as my hon. Friend agreed, the fact is that partly for economic reasons and partly by the direct action of the Government itself programmes have been very largely reduced as compared with the prewar position. In the 1941 programme, 93 days of racing are provided, covering 67 meetings at 15 places. That is the amount which has been approved by the Government, as compared with 331 days, covering 159 meetings at 47 places in 1938. The House will therefore see that there has been a reduction on the average to about 40. per cent. of the figure for the last pre-war year. That is a very material reduction, which has been largely brought about by the Government, with, I should like to say, very good co-operation and


good will on the part of the Jockey Club stewards and others.
I do not quarrel with my hon. Friend's statement that sights such as he mentioned are disheartening not only to hon. Members in this House but to private citizens of all classes who take the war seriously. When all is said and done it is, nevertheless, the case that if we take the line that large assemblies of people for purposes of enjoyment—with some of which one sympathises according to one's point of view, and with some of which one does not sympathise, again according to one's point of view—should be prohibited, or if we say, for example, that no public transport facilities or petrol should be available for getting there then we get dangerously near a position in which the Government is asked to prohibit entertainment, recreation and enjoyment of a certain character altogether. My hon. Friend has made it clear that he is not raising this matter because he is fanatically anti-racing or betting. For myself, I have never been to a race meeting in my life and I have never gambled. That just happens because of my general frame of mind. Because that is so, I must, in my opinion, be careful, particularly in my Ministerial office, not to let my own predilections and wishes as to how I desire to spend my life, determine my policy and tempt me to control the enjoyment of other people.
I think, not in the case of my hon. Friend, but in other quarters, there is a disposition to accept the war as an opportunity to push personal opinion and sometimes, if I may say so, personal intolerance, for getting rid of types of enjoyment which some people think are antisocial and wrong, even wicked and immoral. The hon. Member said that, on rare occasions, he had had a shilling on a horse, and had promptly lost it. That is the fate of most people who put a shilling on a horse. The Government does not take the view that we ought to adopt the line of trying to exclude for the sake of doing so entertainment within reason. On the contrary, if we did take that line, if we tried to make it difficult for people to get to football matches, cricket matches, and even for people to get to political meetings, which my hon. Friend and I like very much and see no harm in at all, if we appeared to take the view that we should make it difficult for people to enjoy themselves, or have

recreation, particularly if it was, we thought, rather a little over the line of moral rectitude, then we are not sure that we should get more out of the people. The Government is inclined to think that people would not like it. They would get restive and they would think we were very stiff. Consequently, when they went to work on Monday morning they might not be in as good spirits as they are now, when they can do things of this kind.
We have, therefore, taken the view that we ought to reduce racing facilities, and as the House will see by the figures I have given, we have materially done so. We do not, however, take the view either on moral or other grounds that horse-racing should be stopped. Horse-racing is a sport which gives a good deal of enjoyment to many sections of the community. It is certainly not a sport solely of attraction to the aristocracy though I agree every good aristocrat knows everything about horse-racing. But there are many class-conscious proletarians who know as much about racing and blood-stock as do the aristocracy. If you ask me who reads the fourth "Star" in London it is the proletarian. He wants to know what has run and what has won the 3.30. It may be a diversion of mental powers and mental interests that the working class and others should be interested in what has won a race, and know what has happened to their shillings. The reason why I have not that interest is merely that it is not in my line. I recognise that for millions of people this "putting on a shilling," or even more, causes a good deal of mental liveliness, and helps to keep them happy while they are at work, even if it causes a certain amount of sorrow when they know the result of the race. If we took steps to make it impossible for them to have a flutter, I am doubtful whether, on balance, we should gain in industrial incentive, or lose. This blood-stock industry has two values to this country The export trade is pretty considerable in value.

Mr. Stokes: What is the value?

Mr. Morrison: If my memory serves me rightly, about £600,000 a year.

Mr. Tinker: Where are the exports sent to?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say. I am speaking from memory, but I think that is roughly the figure. Before the war it was sometimes less, sometimes a bit more. I do not say that it is of decisive economic magnitude, but it is a figure of some importance. The other point about this industry is that British bloodstock is the finest in the world. It would be a pity to lose this British distinction by eliminating racing, which would make it impossible for that industry to go on. It is one thing to say to an American, for example, "This is the horse that won the Derby this year." The American knows then what he is buying. But if you were to say to him, "If there had been a Derby, this is the horse that would have won it," he would say, "Do you think I was born yesterday?" Moreover, the industry could not go on unless some racing continued.
On balance, therefore, the Government take the view that we should not stop horse-racing, but should make an effort to carry it on in its present restricted form, and possibly with even more restrictions which will not imperil the bloodstock industry. I have consulted my colleagues in the Government, because this is a matter on which you cannot guess anybody's opinion and must ask for it. They have given it careful consideration, knowing that there is a sharp division of opinion in the House about it. I know

that there is a substantial body of Members who take the view of my hon. Friend, but I know that there is also a substantial body who take the other view. We shall explore the possibility of confining these meetings practically, if not entirely, to Saturday afternoons. There is the psychological effect of seeing these vast assemblies of motor cars in the middle of the week, and seeing that others can get time off when one cannot oneself. We shall ensure fliat the meetings do not take place where they will interfere materially with railway traffic, and that only to a very small extent are railway facilities provided. In regard to petrol, my hon. Friend who has many problems to deal with, will see what he can do. On the other hand, if he gets down to controlling petrol meticulously, he will become involved in new problems. If there is any thing I as Home Secretary can do about controlling motor transport, I will do it. I appreciate the psychological effect, quite apart from whatever economic importance there may be. I thank my hon. Friend for the spirit of his statement, and I hope the House will appreciate that we are endeavouring to strike a balance and to be as fair as we can.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.